Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Burgess Hill Water Bill [Lords].
Barnsley Corporation Bill [Lords].
Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board Bill [Lords].
Mansfield District Traction Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely,

North Cotswold Rural District Council [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill III.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUILDING TRADES.

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations which have been made to him by the building trades employers for the introduction of a scheme to insure workers in the building trades against loss of employment owing to bad weather; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Representatives of the Joint Council for the Building Industry have been in touch with my Department on this subject. At their request some suggestions, which I hope will be of use to the Council in framing a scheme, have been supplied to them by the Department.

EXCHANGE BRANCH MANAGERS.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider changing the method of remunerating branch managers and not have their payment depend on the number of people unemployed and signing at the particular place where the branch manager is situate?

Mr. E. Brown: The system of remuneration of branch managers was recently raised in agreement with the Staff Associations. I see no reason for suggesting the withdrawal of the additional payments which are in certain circumstances made when the volume of work is greater at a particular office than was anticipated.

Mr. Kelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing in this question which asks him to reduce the remuneration but simply to increase the remuneration; and will he see that those who are retained in the service shall not lose any remuneration by reason of doing their work effectively?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member puts it one way and I put it another. What we do is to pay the worker more.

WORKSHOPS, PAPWORTH.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of non-tuberculous men who have been trained at Government training centres and are at present


in the Papworth workshops, Cambridgeshire, and the wages paid to these men; and particulars of the commodities produced at this establishment?

Mr. E. Brown: Twelve men from Government training centres are at present employed in the Papworth workshops of whom eight are, I understand, paid 1s. 3d. per hour, and four 1s. per hour. I am informed that in addition to carrying out building work in the village settlement, the Papworth industries produce chiefly portable buildings, furniture, leather and fibre travelling goods, and printing.

Mr. Day: Have the medical officers of his Department advised the right hon. Gentleman as to whether these men working alongside infected men run any risk of infection?

Mr. Brown: We recently had a Debate on this matter, and I will send the hon. Member a copy of it.

Mr. Rowson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of that Debate many medical men in the country were astonished at the Ministry's attitude on the matter?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of anything of the kind. I think the exact opposite is the case.

MECHANISATION OF INDUSTRY.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, in arriving at their conclusions as to the probable level of unemployment for the eight-year period, 1936 to 1943, made any estimate of the number of men displaced by the mechanisation of industry, either annually or for a longer period; and what is the estimate of workpeople so displaced?

Mr. E. Brown: The statutory committee have given no such estimate in their reports.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the committee really estimate the probable number of unemployed in 1943 without making an estimate of the number who will be displaced?

Mr. Brown: That is rather a different point. The hon. Member raises a precise issue, and it may be difficult to disentangle it from any other factors.

Mr. Griffiths: Surely the committee which has to advise the Government as to the probable number of unemployed in 1943 must have taken into account an important element of this kind?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member asked me whether they had; and I answered that they had not.

ASSISTANCE BOARD (STAFF).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to the Unemployment Assistance Board taking over the care of the able-bodied unemployed, the Liverpool Public Assistance Committee find themselves with 170 redundant men on their staff whom it is proposed to dismiss; whether the Unemployment Assistance Board promised to take over such staff; and what steps he proposes to take when staffing Unemployment Assistance Board offices to ensure that redundant public assistance committees' staffs shall be absorbed into the new scheme?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that they have been given to understand that their assumption of responsibility for additional numbers of able-bodied unemployed transferred to them as from 1st April, 1937, will give rise to a redundancy in the temporary staff of the Liverpool public assistance committee approximating to that stated by the hon. Member. No promise has at any time been given that the Unemployment Assistance Board would take over this staff. During the passage of the Unemployment Bill in this House an undertaking was given that priority of consideration for employment on the Board's staff would be given to persons who were employed by local authorities on 25th April, 1934, on work transferred to the Board. All members of the Liverpool public assistance committee staff covered by the terms of that undertaking who made application and were suitably qualified have been offered appointment under the Board. The remainder who are not within the terms of the undertaking have been advised to register with their local employment exchanges, when they will be considered as and when possible for any further vacancies that may arise.

BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether, having regard


to the increased cost of food and materials, it is proposed to increase the benefits of the unemployed;
(2) whether, having regard to the increased cost of food and materials, the unemployment Assistance Board is considering increasing the allowances of those who come within their jurisdiction?

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been directed to the recent increases in the cost of foodstuffs and other necessaries, and the relation of such increases to the standard of living of unemployed persons; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?

Mr. E. Brown: I do not consider that any circumstances have arisen which would justify the action necessary for increasing the rates of unemployment benefit and the basic rates of unemployment assistance.

INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that prolonged unemployment has made many men unfit to accept immediate employment in the mining industry in Northumberland, he will consider relating the Aldershot experiment to specific men who, when fit, can obtain specific jobs?

Mr. E. Brown: I would remind my hon. Friend that the object of the Ministry's instructional centres is already that which she suggests. It has been made clear in Northumberland that men who require physical reconditioning before they can be accepted for employment in the mines can obtain such reconditioning in the instructional centres. The question whether some minor modifications of the treatment accorded in instructional centres are required in the light of the Aldershot experiment is under consideration, but I am satisfied that no major changes are shown by that experiment to be required.

Miss Ward: May I ask whether specific jobs are related to specific persons in training camps? Am I right in understanding that no preference is given to men who have gone to the camps when they come back? Is there to be an alteration in policy?

Mr. Brown: I would remind the hon. Member that the Ministry of Labour was the pioneer in this type of effort.

Mr. Paling: In view of the fact that this experiment was in the main concerned with giving sufficient food, why cannot employés be given sufficient food in their own homes to keep them fit there?

COURTS OF REFEREES (BENEFIT REFUSED).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of rejections for benefit by courts of referees during 1936 at the following employment exchanges: Stoke-on-Trent, Longton, Sheffield, Glasgow, West Ham, and Bristol; and the percentage of rejections for the whole country?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having the information extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is available.

TRANSFEREES.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, under the scheme for the transference of young girls from Durham to factory work in Southend, girls of 15 years of age, after paying their expenses, have only 4s. a week and those over 16 only 5s. a week left for clothing, etc., and whether this scheme has been approved by his Department and by any authority in Durham?

Mr. E. Brown: With the approval of the Ministry of Labour and the Durham Education Authority a number of girls have been transferred from Durham to factory employment in Southend in accordance with the conditions of the official juvenile transference scheme, particulars of which I am sending the hon. Member.

Mr. Whiteley: Are we to understand from that reply that the Ministry of Labour is quite content to allow such a system to go on?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the full particulars, and not the selected facts in the question, and will note what I pointed out in my answer, namely, that this scheme not merely has the approval of the Ministry of Labour but of the Durham Education Authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC SERVANTS (ALIEN IMMIGRANTS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour the average interval of time between an application for a permit for


an alien immigrant to work as a domestic servant in Great Britain and notification of the Ministry's decision?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that this could not be ascertained without a disproportionate amount of work.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the shortage of domestic servants in this country, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to expedite the Ministry's inquiries as much as possible?

Mr. Brown: We are doing all we can to complete them as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government intend to give effect to the findings of the committee which recommended the inclusion of non-manual workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act who earn up to £400 per annum?

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the introduction of legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Commission that the salary limit for unemployment insurance for non-manual workers should be raised from £250 to £400 per annum?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull).

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-WEST DURHAM.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when the South-west Durham Improvement Association will be set up; and can he now give the names of the persons who will be appointed to serve on this association?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that I have nothing at present to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 16th March.

Mr. Stewart: Seeing that the setting up of this committee may mean much to the people who are living in Southwest Durham, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to get into touch with the Commissioner for the Special Areas with a view to getting the committee working at an earlier date?

Mr. Brown: I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no undue delay. The Commissioner is at the moment in the area, but as the hon. Member will understand, it is necessary to get the best possible members for this very valuable committee.

Mr. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know full well that nothing will be done for South Wales and Durham until this committee is set up?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour how many occupied people have their wages regulated by collective agreements based on a cost-of-living sliding scale; and how many others among the occupied population, if any, have their wages automatically regulated according to the cost-of-living index?

Mr. E. Brown: The only arrangements known to my Department under which rates of wages are automatically regulated in accordance with movements in the cost-of-living index number are those embodied in collective agreements or in orders under the Trade Boards Acts. The total number of employés covered by these arrangements is estimated at between 1,250,000 and 1,500,000. A number of the agreements, however, estimated to cover nearly 500,000 work-people, are at present suspended or will not come into effective operation unless there is a substantial rise in the cost-of-living index figure above the present level.

16. Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of making arrangements by which it shall be an obligation upon any employer to state on the green card which a prospective employé brings to him from the Employment Exchange the wages he intends to pay to that worker?

Mr. Brown: I do not think this would be practicable.

Mr. Mander: Would not this be a very valuable means of keeping up the standard of wages, and will not my right hon. Friend consider the practicability of doing it?

Mr. Brown: There is a number of other factors to be taken into consideration. If the hon. Member will consult with me


about it, I shall be very glad to show him why I say that there is a number of other factors.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman state some of the reasons why it is not advisable?

Mr. Brown: Not in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the rising discontent among workers of all grades, and particularly in establishments engaged in the production of war-like material, owing to the low level of wages paid, the rising cost of living, and the belief that manufacturers and others are making large profits out of national needs; and whether he intends to approach the trade unions in the matter or take any other action which would lead to a more satisfactory state of affairs and secure for the workers a more reasonable standard of living?

Mr. Brown: There is in all the major industries machinery for collective negotiation, which, I am satisfied, can be relied upon to take proper account of all these factors without the necessity of prior approach by the Government. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the manner in which this machinery has operated in the handling of the many difficult problems necessarily raised in a period of continuously improving employment.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the very large number of disputes now occurring in the industries of the country, particularly as regards armaments production? Moreover, is he aware that the cost of living has increased, and that wages are not following that increase, and does he propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. Brown: I cannot accept the statement that there is a large number of disputes. I think that is a great exaggeration. I would like to add, as I pointed out in answer to a previous question, that whereas in March, 1937, the cost of living figure was 51, in March, 1924, when the hon. Member's party was in office, it was 78.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information relating not to 1924, but to 1935 and 1936?

Mr. Brown: I have that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of firms registered on the King's Roll in each of the years 1928 to 1937; whether there has been any fall in the number; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of this Roll to disabled ex-service men, he will take steps to restore the Roll to its former strength?

Mr. E. Brown: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures in answer to the first part of his question. A certain decrease in the membership of the Roll with the passage of time is probably inevitable. I am, however, most anxious that the maximum amount of employment should be available for disabled ex-service men and my Department co-operates to the fullest extent with the King's Roll National Council and the local committees which administer the King's Roll scheme and which are active in persuading employers to enrol or to continue their enrolment. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that at the beginning of January, 1937, the number of disabled ex-service men registered as unemployed represented 8.1 per cent. of the estimated number of men in receipt of disability pensions or allowances, compared with 14 per cent. of unemployment among insured men generally.

Following is the table:

The membership of the King's National Roll in January of each of the years 1928 to 1937 was:


1928
…
…
27,339


1929
…
…
27,151


1930
…
…
*26,709


1931
…
…
25,910


1932
…
…
25,344


1933
…
…
24,947


1934
…
…
24,430


1935
…
…
23,914


1936
…
…
23,758


1937
…
…
23,727


* This figure actually relates to December, 1929.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF WORK.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour in what industries have the hours of work been reduced in the past five years; and what is the approximate number of workpeople covered by such reductions?

Mr. E. Brown: The principal industries in which normal weekly hours of labour were reported as having been reduced in the five years ended March, 1937, include boot and shoe manufacture, the mercantile marine, heavy chemicals manufacture (shift workers), pig iron manufacture (shift workers), flour milling, heating and domestic engineering, and newspaper printing (in England and Wales except London). There were also reductions in sections of some other industries in various localities. The estimated number of workpeople, in all the industries and services for which statistics are available, whose hours of labour were reported as having been reduced during the above period is about 260,000.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, when opposing the proposed international 40-hour week at Washington for the textile industry, represented the views of the Government, or the employers, or the workers?

Mr. Brown: I have as yet received no report of the proceedings at this conference, but I may point out that at International Labour Conferences, employers and workers have their own representatives by whom their views are expressed.

Mr. Leslie: Does not the Minister think that it is high time, for the good name of this country, to cease this opposition, and to be more in line with other countries and with progressive employers in this country?

Mr. Brown: I have said that I have received no report as to what was said, and I prefer to wait for that before making any remarks.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen a report of a speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in which he strongly condemned the 40-hour week proposals, and is that speech indicative of the Government's attitude on this question?

Mr. Brown: I have already said that I have received no report of it. I have seen certain Press reports, but surely the House would not expect me to accept them as necessarily being accurate.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what were the instruc-

tions given to the Parliamentary Secretary before he went to Washington?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, I shall be glad to give him an answer.

Mr. Paling: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that he has to await a report of the conference before he can tell us how the Government representative votes on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS (DISPUTES).

Mr. McGovern: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the strike of engineers at Park-head Forge, Glasgow, and the strike of apprentices in Clyde shipyards; and whether he proposes to take steps to bring the parties in the disputes together with a view to bringing the strikes to a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the disputes to which the hon. Member refers. They are at present the subject of discussion between the workpeople and the organisations concerned, and I know of no obstacle to a meeting between the workpeople and their employers.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great extension of the strike among the apprentices and probably the engineers, and that there exists in the Ministry of Labour a Department for the purpose of bringing the parties together? Is he also aware that the great increase in the cost of living is much in the minds of the men at the moment?

Mr. Brown: With regard to the last point, I would remind the hon. Member that the cost-of-living figure for March was 51, while in March, 1924, it was 78 —a very different figure. With regard to the first part of the supplementary, I have nothing to acid to my original answer, except to say that it is important for the Ministry of Labour to know when to interfere and when not to interfere.

Mr. Maxton: Is this not a reasonable demand on the part of the men?

Mr. Brown: The issue is one of constitutional procedure—a very different thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE CORONATION.

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of his Department to make a grant for Coronation Day to all persons in receipt of unemployment standard benefits?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4th March to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the intention to close some parts of the streets in the West End of London against vehicular traffic during Coronation week, any provision has been made for keeping open one or more through routes for cabs and cars conveying passengers to and from theatres and other places of entertainment; and can a public announcement of the detailed arrangements be made without further delay?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): Yes, Sir; provision will be made to maintain access to theatres, and the Commissioner of Police is about to issue to the Press a communiqué on this subject.

Mr. Bernays: asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause the necessary steps to be taken to ensure that the pending by-elections are completed by such a date as will obviate party controversy in the country during the period of national rejoicing attendant on Their Majesties' Coronation?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I fully appreciate the suggestion of the hon. Member. The matter had not escaped my notice, and arrangements are already being made for the new writs to fill the pending vacancies to be moved in the House at a very early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMA EMPLOYES (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information respecting the weekly hours of employment of attendants and others employed at cinemas?

Mr. E. Brown: The only information available respecting the weekly hours of employment of attendants and others employed at cinemas is that contained in a few collective agreements made between employers' associations and trade unions in certain districts. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such information as is available.

Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries into this matter? Is he prepared to set up an inquiry, and will he look into the conditions prevailing in Doncaster as far as cinemas are concerned?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the rather long list with which I am supplying him, and then it he has any further points to raise with me, perhaps he will do so.

Mr. Lawson: Is there not considerable information already at the disposal of the Minister of Labour? Was there not an investigation some years ago, and will the right hon. Gentleman continue that investigation in view of the fact that there have been complaints for many years?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will understand that I have been asked for information about trade conditions. That is what I have given, and perhaps he will look at it first.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that there were complaints about working conditions in cinemas some years ago, that the Ministry of Labour began an inquiry, and that there is at the disposal of the Ministry considerable information? Will he begin that inquiry again?

Mr. Brown: I prefer to wait for whatever remarks the hon. Member who put the question may have to make to me about the table I am submitting to the House.

Mr. Day: Has the Minister's notice been drawn to the fact that these employés work over 70 hours a week in many of the small cinemas?

Mr. Brown: The fact is that none of the figures I have in these agreements approaches that figure.

Following is the statement:




Hours of Labour of cinema employés as agreed upon between employers' associations and trade unions in certain districts.


District.
Class of Workers.
Hours of Labour in a full week.


London and Home Counties
Staff working on Sundays:—




General Staff
55



Female Staff
50



Projectionists and Electricians
55



Staff not working on Sundays:—




General Staff
60



Female Staff
55



Projectionists and Electricians
60


Manchester
Operators and assistants
48


Clyde
Operators
48


Barrow-in-Furness
Utility men, daymen, electricians, operators and assistants.
50



Night Staff: attendants, checkers, ushers, cashiers, barmaids, operators, etc.
5 hours per night.



2¾ hours per matinee.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Emery: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state what will be the contribution of the Government towards the expenditure incurred by local authorities on the provision of air-raid precautions?

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst the local authorities of the country regarding the failure of the Government to indicate that the costs incurred in connection with air-raid precautions will be met from national funds and that the work is being delayed; and what action he proposes to take to remedy that position?

Mr. Kirby: asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to encourage local authorities to proceed rapidly with their air-raid precautions, he can now state that the Government will bear the whole of the cost on the grounds that such precautions will be in the nature of national defence?

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make a statement as to the apportionment of the cost of air-raid precautions between the Government and local authorities?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the decision unanimously passed at a conference of representatives of important local authorities held at the County Hall, S.E.I, on 18th March, recommending their authorities to defer incurring further expenditure in respect of air-raid

precautions, including the emergency fire brigade organisation, until His Majesty's Government has reached a decision upon the financial issue; and whether he can make a statement?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary what is the present position concerning the discussions between his Department and various local authorities regarding defrayal of the expenses involved in the organisation of defence against attack from the air?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The anxiety of local authorities with regard to the incidence of financial responsibility for air-raid precautions is fully appreciated. In order to obtain a complete picture of the probable cost of air-raid precautions for the whole country, it has been necessary to make a careful examination of estimates which have been submitted from various parts of the country, in consultation with the local authorities concerned. This has only recently become possible because, although good progress has been made in the preparation by local authorities of their schemes of general organisation, the detailed financial proposals which were necessary as a basis for the formulation of an over-all estimate of cost had not previously been available. The work has been pressed forward with the greatest energy, and it is intended that an early announcement will he made.

Mr. Thorne: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of when


he will be able to make a statement as to whether the Government are going to bear some of the expenditure or not? There is £35,000,000 that has to be paid.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that local authorities are being held up in their efforts because they are waiting to know the Government's decision?

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the fact that the Government have already undertaken to provide the cost of respirators and the major part of the cost of anti-gas training, there is no reason why the formulation of plans and training should not continue.

Mr. Morrison: But surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that, having regard to the emergency fire brigade organisation, it is impossible for local authorities to go further than they have already gone until they know the decision of the Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I see the hon. Gentleman's point. An early announcement will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary which of the existing prisons the Government have decided to close or reconstruct in the near future, and the number of the same that have been closed or partially closed during the previous five years; and what provision has been made for the established staff so affected?

Sir J. Simon: The closing of the women's wing at Hull is contemplated, but it is not proposed to close or reconstruct any other prison in the near future. During the five years ended 3rst March the women's sections have been closed at Liverpool and Winchester, and the established staff has been absorbed into vacancies at other prisons.

Mr. Day: Will the same arrangements be made for the established staff at Hull?

Miss Rathbone: Is the closing down of the women's wing of the prison due to the law-abiding nature of the female sex?

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTER ACT.

Mr. Leckie: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the unpropitious

weather which an early Easter usually involves, he will take steps, by legislation if necessary, to put into force the provisions of the Act for a fixed Easter now on the Statute Book, without waiting any longer for the other nations which have not yet signified their assent?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 26th November last. I will send him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary on what date Father Henry Gabana, a priest of Spanish nationality, was allowed to enter Great Britain; whether any conditions were imposed for his observance during his stay; whether any complaints have been received that he is addressing political meetings of which the chief feature is attacks upon the Governments of Spain and Catalonia; and whether His Majesty's Government propose taking any action to restrict his activities in this direction?

Sir J. Simon: This individual arrived in this country on 5th July last for a few months' holiday and remained until 7th January when he left for the Continent. On his return on 18th January he was allowed to land on his statement that he wished to prolong his stay until the Spanish trouble is finished. No complaint was received with regard to him during his first visit, but my attention has now been drawn to his activities in addressing meetings on the subject of Spain. He is being warned that if he wishes to continue his stay in the country it can only be on the condition that he abstains from engaging in activities directed to furthering the cause of either side in the Spanish struggle.

Mr. Gallacher: Arising out of that answer, and in recognition of the fact that this propaganda has been going on, would the Home Secretary not be prepared to consider withdrawing the ban from representatives of the Government side and allowing all to have an opportunity of stating their views? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have no objection to this priest being allowed to state his views, if the same opportunity is extended to others?

Mr. Logan: Arising out of the question put by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), is it not a fact that Father Gabana took asylum in this country and that he has been speaking to his Catholic co-religionists in this country; and is not the pernicious propaganda of the hon. Member for West Fife to be accounted as worse than the propaganda of this father?

Oral Answers to Questions — SENTENCE, BURTON-ON-TRENT.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a mother in Burton-on-Trent, charged with receiving stolen milk cheques, valued at a few pence, obtained by her 11 year old son, and who was sent to prison for 21 days; and whether, in view of the fact that she is a mother of six children and that her husband had been out of work for two years, he will consider remitting the sentence?

Sir J. Simon: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, but on inquiry I find that on 25th March the woman in question pleaded guilty to two charges of receiving milk checks which had been stolen by her small boy, and that a further 20 charges involving 46 milk checks were also admitted by her and taken into consideration when sentence was passed. I am informed that these offences were committed during February and March at a time when her husband and eldest son were both in

—
Persons proceeded against.
Charge withdrawn or dismissed.*


1935.







Metropolitan Police District
…
…
…
3,762

1,264




Rest of England and Wales
…
…
…
1,115

259




Total
…
…
…

4,877

1,523



1936.







Metropolitan Police District
…
…
…
2,714

1,001

 Provisional figures.


Rest of England and Wales
…
…
…
1,026

217



Total
…
…
…

3,740

1,218


* The figures in this column do not include cases in which the Court found the charge proved but decided to dismiss it under Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907

Mr. Thurtle: asked ale Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the case of the wrongful arrest of Mr. Alfred Henry Lane, of Shoreditch; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?

regular employment; that there are a number of centres where she could, if necessary, have obtained milk free of charge for her children; and that as a result of the thefts innocent persons had come under suspicion. This women has now served a fortnight of her sentence, and in view of this I am communicating with the magistrates as to the remainder.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARGES OF LOITERING.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Home Secretary how many persons were charged with frequenting or loitering with intent to commit a felony in the Metropolitan police district and in England and Wales outside that district in the years 1935 and 1936, respectively; and how many of such charges were withdrawn or dismissed?

Sir J. Simon: As the answer involves a number of figures, with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of suspected persons or reputed thieves proceeded against in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Wales under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824 (as amended by Section 15 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, and Section 7 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891), for frequenting or loitering with intent to commit felony, and the number of such persons in whose case the charge was withdrawn or dismissed during each of the years 1935 and 1936 were as follow:

Sir J. Simon: I have made full inquiries, and I am satisfied that the officers concerned acted in good faith in arresting and charging Mr. Lane. While I much regret the inconvenience to which the defendant was subjected by reason of his


arrest, I can find no ground for any action on my part in the matter.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Home Secretary aware that cases of this kind are occurring with increasing frequency in the East End, where working-men walking along the street are taken up and charged with loitering and suspicious intent and the magistrates then find that there is no case against them?

Sir J. Simon: I, myself, always watch these cases with all the care I can and it is very important, of course, that the police in these matters should act with discretion. At the same time, I think the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that it is not necessarily a bad thing that the magistrate should feel free to say on occasion that he is not satisfied. If we proceeded on the assumption that every time a policeman arrested somebody that person should be convicted, I do not think we should ever get anywhere.

Mr. Thurtle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very humiliating for a perfectly honest man to be arrested and detained for three hours, when there is no ground for his arrest?

Sir J. Simon: I feel all that as much as anybody in the House, but I have satisfied myself here that the police acted in really good faith, and as long as the authorities are satisfied as to this, if they do make occasional mistakes, then I am afraid we must put up with them.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come for a review of all this penal legislation with regard to loitering?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made by Governments in other countries to His Majesty's Government regarding the possibility of international agreement on tariffs, quotas and other matters concerning international trade; and whether it is proposed to take any action?

Sir P. Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether Monsieur Van Zeeland, the Belgian Prime Minister, has been approached by the British and French Governments with a view of discussing

with him methods for the reduction of obstacles to international trade, and, if so, when a conference, if any, between the three countries is likely to take place?

The Prime Minister: No approach has been made to His Majesty's Government by other Governments regarding the possibility of an international agreement on trade matters, although various informal interchanges of views have taken place. His Majesty's Government and the French Government have inquired of the Belgian Prime Minister whether he would be willing to undertake preliminary informal investigations in various countries as to the possibility of securing a general relaxation of quotas and other obstacles to international trade. M. van Zeeland has been good enough to state that he is disposed to accept this invitation. No international conference is at present envisaged.

Mr. Shinwell: May we take it from that answer that the Government are fully conscious of the need for removing undesirable restrictions on international trade and will follow such a course in these discussions?

The Prime Minister: We are, of course, fully aware of it.

Sir P. Harris: Will these inquiries include an inquiry into the possibilities of lowering some of the tariff barriers, as well as dealing with quotas and other restrictions?

The Prime Minister: We do not close our minds to those matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS WARFARE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the petition from the Civic South Wales Council of Action for Peace in connection with the abolition of gas warfare; whether he is aware that the signatories to the petition represent all shades of political and religious opinion in South and North Wales; whether he can state what was the text of the petition and what was the date when the petition was received; and whether any reply has been sent to the petitioners?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I received the manifesto from the General Secretary of the Council of Action for


Peace and Reconstruction on 16th December last year. A reply was sent to the General Secretary on 16th January.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to advise the Foreign Secretary to put this subject of gas warfare on the agenda at Geneva to see whether there is any possibility of having such warfare done away with?

The Prime Minister: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for time to be given for a Debate on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, and other hon. Members, relative to the Ministry of Pensions?

[That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the administration of the Ministry of Pensions with particular reference to war pensions and applications for war service pensions; that the Committee have power to receive evidence from ex-service men, widows of ex-service men, and to send for persons, papers, and records.]

The Prime Minister: I am afraid in the present state of public business I cannot afford a special opportunity for the discussion of this Motion.

Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep feeling of suffering that exists throughout the country; and, in view of that, does he not think that the time has arrived when Parliament should be given the opportunity of considering this question?

The Prime Minister: The answer which I have just given is on all fours with one I gave yesterday. It is impossible in the next few weeks to find any time, but I would remind the hon. Member that this matter can be most suitably raised at any time when the Ministry of Pensions Vote is brought before the House. The case can then be put and answered, and I think that that would be much the best way to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in a recent

speech in New York, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, called attention to the need for increased economic co-operation between the nations of the world as a guarantee of peace; and whether he will consider extending the scope of the agenda of the Imperial Conference next month to include this question?

The Prime Minister: The scope of the agenda of the Imperial Conference as already announced is, I think, sufficiently wide to admit the general discussion of this question if the Governments represented at the conference so desired.

Mr. Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ottawa Agreements were one of the difficulties in the way referred to in the speech of Mr. Cordell Hull?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SUGAR CONFERENCE.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he can give assurance to the House that, in the event of any limitation being placed upon the exports of Empire sugar, the Empire will be allowed to obtain the full benefit of any expansion of consumption which may take place in Empire markets?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I cannot at present anticipate the conclusions of the International Sugar Conference, but the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is one which, among others, is being borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (COAL MINERS).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made by the Medical Research Council in their investigations into the problem of silicosis, and other lung diseases, among coal miners; and whether he can give any indication as to when the committee's investigation will be completed?

Mr. R. MacDonald: The standing committee appointed by the Medical Research Council to direct research into disease of the lungs among industrial workers has already promoted several investigations into silicosis and other conditions; the results have been published in a series of


official reports and scientific papers. These researches were in most cases not specially directed to the particular problem of lung disease among coal miners, but during recent months attention has been concentrated on this, and a scheme of intensive investigation in South Wales has been initiated. The work already done shows the problem to be one of great difficulty and complexity, and the investigation is not likely to be completed in less than two years.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Lord President aware that increasing numbers of men are being disabled from continuing their employment because of lung disease contracted in their employment and are becoming chargeable to public funds when they ought to be drawing compensation from their employers; and, in view of that, can we press that there should be a completion of this investigation in much less time than two years?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member can rely upon it that, so far as pressure is concerned, it will be exerted, but these are very delicate and difficult scientific investigations, and the worst thing we can do if we want to get a real, good, sound conclusion is to press them too hard. We have already increased the staff of assistants engaged in this work.

Mr. E. Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report to the Lord President which has just been prepared by the Medical Advisory Council, and, if so, will he consult with the Home Secretary in order that we can have the best possible clauses placed in the Factories Bill in order to deal with this question?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the position of the men who are affected, I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL HOME-WORK.

Mr. Radford: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to announce his decision on the question of children's homework?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer

my hon. Friend to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) on 24th March, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Radford: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this inquiry has been going on for two years?

Mr. Stanley: If my hon. Friend had listened to or read the answer to which I have referred, he would have seen that the report has been in the hands of the printers for some weeks.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. E. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of classes in public elementary schools in which there are more than 40 pupils; and what steps have been recently taken by the Board to induce local education authorities to reduce the size of these classes?

Mr. Stanley: On 31st March, 1936, the latest date for which figures are yet available, there were 49,621 classes in public elementary schools with more than 40 children on the books. The question of over-large classes is reviewed by the board annually in connection with the investigation of the teaching establishments of local education authorities, but otherwise no special steps have been taken in view of the rapid and continuous fall in the number of the larger classes in recent years.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to reconsider the building programmes submitted by local authorities in 1931 in regard to blacklisted schools?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that I do not understand the question. Any authority is at liberty to submit any building programme for this year.

Mr. Williams: Is it not a fact that the Government held up the building programmes of local authorities?

Mr. Stanley: They did in 1931, but that ban has been removed for some time.

UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.

Mr. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of qualified certificated teachers who have been unable to obtain employment since leaving college in 1936?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) on 11th March, a copy of which I am sending him. Individual notifications which have reached the board show that many of the teachers reported as unemployed on 31st December last have now secured employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND ACQUISITION (OLD FLETTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Health whether he has sanctioned the application of the Old Fletton Urban District Council to acquire land of about three acres at Coneygree Road and land of about 61 acres at London Road, Wood-stone; for what purpose these sites are wanted; if purchase has been effected, what prices have been paid; and whether these sites were previously agricultural land and therefore derated?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): Proposals for the purchase of sites referred to have not yet been submitted to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTION.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give for London, Greater London, the rest of England, Wales, and Scotland the number of dwelling-houses in each of the following categories, respectively, at present controlled under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920–25: dwelling-houses not exceeding £20 in rateable value or net annual value in the Metropolitan police district and the City, £26 5s. in Scotland, and £13 elsewhere, and dwelling-houses exceeding the above figures in rateable or net annual value in the respective areas but not exceeding £45 in rateable value or rent in the Metropolitan police district and the City and in Scotland, and £35 elsewhere; how many dwelling-houses in each of these groups have been decontrolled under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, in each of the said areas; and how many dwelling-houses were excluded from control by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1933?

Sir K. Wood: It is not possible to give the information in relation to areas, but so far as England and Wales are concerned, the number of houses taken out of control by the 1933 Rent Act was about 450,000. There are from 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 controlled "C" class houses and rather over 1, 000,000 decontrolled "C" class houses. The number of controlled "B" class houses gradually diminishes by the operation of decontrol. It was estimated that in 1933 there were about 1,250,000 controlled "B" class houses, but I have no information as to the number to-day. The numbers of houses now in the various categories mentioned will no doubt be examined by the Departmental Committee about to be set up to inquire into the working of the Rent Restriction Acts. As regards Scotland, a question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Sir Francis Fremantle: When is that Departmental Committee likely to be set up?

Sir K. Wood: Shortly, I hope.

RE-HOUSING GRANTS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in England and Wales have made application for Exchequer grants in aid of accommodation to be provided, otherwise than in blocks of flats on expensive sites, for the abatement of overcrowding under the terms of Section 32 of the Housing Act, 1935, and Section 107 of the Housing Act, 1936; and the number and amount of the grants approved by him under those Sections up to the end of February, 1937?

Sir K. Wood: Up to 28th February, 1937, applications have been received from 102 local authorities and grants have been approved for 22 local authorities, the grants being £5 in respect of 1,019 houses, £4 in respect of 434 houses, and £2 in respect of 111 houses for a period of 20 years in each case. As regards the remainder 50 are at present under consideration, 10 have been withdrawn, 11 suspended in agreement with the authority, and nine have been refused.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister consider that those figures are satisfactory in view of the situation?

Sir K. Wood: I hesitate to give a judgment, but I think that all the authorities concerned are doing their best. If the hon. Gentleman has any case he would like me to look into, I will gladly do so.

RURAL WORKERS.

Captain Heilgers: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to bring the facilities of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act to the notice of those concerned?

Sir K. Wood: Experience has shown that in those areas where the working of this Act has been most successful, sustained publicity has been an important factor. In pursuance of a suggestion of my Central Housing Advisory Committee I have had a poster, a folder and a booklet prepared for distribution by local authorities. All three are illustrated and draw attention in simple language to the advantages of the Act. Local authorities are, I am glad to say, freely availing themselves of this provision.

Captain Heilgers: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a copy of the very valuable document recently issued on the subject to be placed in the Members' Tea Room?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, so far as I am concerned.

RENTS (GOLDERS GREEN).

Mr. G. Hardie: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Hampstead garden suburb, Golders Green, houses that before the War were rented at £30 per year on becoming vacant are raised to £72 and £78 plus rates; and will he take the necessary steps to prevent this overcharging?

Sir K. Wood: I have no information relating to the first part of the question. As I have already announced, the Government are taking steps to set up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Hardie: Has the Minister no power to protect decent people who are now being overcharged? The Committee may go on sitting for months, and meanwhile those people are being put in a very difficult position.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case he has in mind?

Mr. McGovern: Will this inquiry also cover Scotland, or is there to be a separate Committee inquiring into Scotland?

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that point.

CROYDON.

Dr. Salter: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, despite the serious shortage of accommodation available at rents within the means of the lower-paid wage-earners in the Croydon district and the grave overcrowding prevalent in the area, the Corporation of Croydon have made regulations under which an applicant for a municipal house must have resided in the borough for a period of at least 10 years to render such applicant eligible for a dwelling let at a rent of less than £1 per week; and whether such a policy has his approval?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the regulations made by the town council include a condition to the effect mentioned, but that this condition is relaxed in the case of overcrowded families, persons displaced by slum clearance and the abatement of overcrowding, and other cases where special circumstances exist. My approval is not required to the regulations made by local authorities for the management of the houses provided by them.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that such allegations as are contained in this question have any substance, and does he not think he had better inform himself of what foundation there is for them?

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of this council hold the same views as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)?

Sir K. Wood: Then I congratulate them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Morgan: asked the Minister of Health how many people have been refused old age pensions during the last five years on the ground that their contributions were erroneously paid; and in how many of these cases were contributions refunded?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available. It is the practice, however, in such cases to refund the contributions, subject to deduction for health insurance benefits paid and the cost of medical benefit and administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the great dissatisfaction that has been caused in Wednesfield and Willenhall as a result of the coming into force on 1st April of the new arrangements for the treatment of invalids, both public assistance applicants and hospital contributors, under the new Staffordshire County Council scheme; whether he realises that it is now necessary for patients to be taken a distance of from eight to ten miles to Wordsley institution instead of receiving treatment in the immediate vicinity at the New Cross hospital of the Wolverhampton Borough Council; and what resident medical officers are available at Wordsley for the treatment of these patients?

Sir K. Wood: The plans of the Staffordshire County Council for the reorganisation of hospital and other institutional accommodation in the county include the reconstruction of the present institution at Wordsley as a general hospital to serve the sick in the southern part of the county, and I have given my consent to this proposal. The hon. Member will appreciate that the improvement of institutional services and the better classification of patients, which were one of the objects of the Local Government Act, 1929, must sometimes involve the removal of certain patients to a greater distance from their homes, but if the hon. Member has any particular cases of hardship in mind I will make inquiries. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the medical officer of the Wordsley institution lives near at hand and is always available, and that the council propose to appoint a resident medical officer or officers as soon as the reconstruction permits.

Mr. Mander: In view of the strong local feeling and the great inconvenience caused, will my right hon. Friend consider using his good offices to secure a more

satisfactory arrangement, and will he also be prepared to receive a deputation?

Sir K. Wood: No, I should prefer to confer with the hon. Member, who, no doubt, has all the points at his finger ends.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend not rule out the possibility of meeting a deputation, in view of the fact that it is quite possible that he may be asked to see one?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to see first how he and I get on together.

Sir F. Fremantle: If under these arrangements patients have to be taken further from their homes, will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for an increase in the ambulance service?

Sir K. Wood: That is a matter for the local authorities.

NUTRITION.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Nutrition that the consumption of potatoes should be increased, whether the Government contemplate taking steps to provide potatoes at reduced prices on the lines of the Bishop Auckland scheme?

Sir K. Wood: The matter is receiving consideration, together with the other recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, but I am not yet in a position to say what further action may be taken.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to institute the inquiries into income distribution, family budgets and diet recommended by the Advisory Committee on Nutrition in their recent report, in so far as these are not already covered by existing investigations?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. The dietary surveys have already commenced. As regards family budgets, it is hoped to obtain information as to food consumption in the course of the inquiry which is being undertaken by my right lion. Friend the Minister of Labour for the purpose of the revision of the cost of living index number. The method of carrying out the remaining proposal is receiving immediate consideration.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have yet come to any decision in regard to the recommendations made by the Milk Reorganisation Commission for the increased consumption of liquid milk, the necessity for which is stressed in the recent report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition?

Sir K. Wood: The recommendations of the Commission as a whole are still receiving the Government's careful consideration. I would, however, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the circular which I issued on 1st April to maternity and child welfare authorities (of which I am sending him a copy) inviting their attention to the report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition and urging them to review their arrangements for the supply of milk in the light of that report.

Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hopes to local authorities that they will receive financial aid in providing milk on a more generous scale?

Sir K. Wood: I will send the hon. Member a copy of the circular, in which she will see that that matter is referred to.

Mr. T. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman place a copy of the circular in the Library, so that all Members can see it?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, and I will also send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

SEWAGE FARM, CROYDON.

Sir Richard Meller: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered complaints from residents in the districts of Beddington and Hackbridge with reference to the obnoxious smells arising from the Croydon sewage farm; whether he is aware that this nuisance has continued over a long period; and what steps he is taking to compel the Croydon Corporation to abate the nuisance?

Sir K. Wood: I received a complaint in this matter three days ago, and am in communication with the council. The new works which should, I hope, completely remove any cause of complaint, are nearing completion.

Sir R. Meller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme is likely to

occupy a period of more than a year, that this complaint has been made for some four or five years, and that at the present time conditions are becoming more abominable and a greater nuisance than ever?

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister prepared to congratulate the members of the Croydon Council on allowing these stinks to continue?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE PENSIONS (VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS) BILL.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health what would be the additional charge on the Exchequer if the income limit for women contributors under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Pensions (Voluntary Contributors) Bill, 1937, were raised from the sum of £250, of which not more than £125 may be unearned, as proposed in the Bill, to the sum of £400, of which not more than £200 might be unearned?

Sir K. Wood: The additional charge which would have to be borne by the Exchequer in the circumstances referred to in the question would depend upon the number of women who became contributors, but as will be seen from the Government Actuary's Report, the estimated capital cost to the Exchequer of the first 100,000 women entering on the terms of the Bill would be £4,000,000 in respect of benefits up to age 70. If the income limit were raised as suggested in the question, the average charge to the Exchequer for each entrant might be higher owing to a probable increase in the average age of the contributors. I am, however, unable to give any further estimate, as the present estimates were made only after prolonged investigation.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the importance of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government Actuary to inquire into the matter and make an estimate on the same basis as the estimate contained in his report?

Sir K. Wood: I have conferred with the Government Actuary, and if after this explanation the hon. Lady thinks the matter requires further elucidation perhaps she will confer with me about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that special service pensions are taken into account by the Liverpool public assistance committee when assessing applications for relief; and whether he will give instructions that such pension income shall, in future, be excluded from the assessments?

Sir K. Wood: There is no statutory authority which would enable the Liverpool public assistance committee in assessing applications for relief to disregard the source of income to which the hon. Member refers. In the absence of such authority, I have no power to issue instructions to public assistance authorities in the sense desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.

Captain Elliston: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the apparent impracticability of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Medicine Stamp Duties, he will invite the interests primarily concerned to cooperate in the preparation of a scheme for restoring or expanding the revenue from Medicine Stamp Duties?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, West (Sir R. Bird) on 6th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN (INCOMES).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate number of women, as shown by the Returns of the Board of Inland Revenue or otherwise, whose income ranges between £250 and £400 per annum?

Mr. Chamberlain: As the assessments to Income Tax are not classified by reference to total income or the sex of the taxpayer, I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM PRINTS (IMPORTS).

Mr. Leckie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that

positive film prints are now being imported into this country from the United States of America, and duped here into negatives, from which an unlimited number of copies can then be printed; and whether he will take steps to stop this method of evasion of Customs duty?

Mr. Chamberlain: I am aware that imported positive cinematograph films can be used for the production of negatives from which further positives can be printed. The position is being borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS REGULATIONS (CONFISCATED GOODS).

Mr. Day: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury by what means, advertising or otherwise, Customs authorities bring to the notice of the public any sales by auction of goods confiscated for breaches of Customs regulations; and can he give the figures of the sums realised by such sales for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Except in the case of goods such as perishables which have to be sold immediately, sales by auction of goods confiscated for breaches of Customs regulations are advertised in the Press and by public notices exhibited at Custom Houses. Notifications are also sent to individual firms on request. During the 12 months ended 28th February, 1937, the total sum realised from sales by auction or tender was approximately £16,150.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say what happens to smaller quantities of perfumes and liquors which are confiscated?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING INDUSTRY.

Sir George Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that practically the entire herring fishery off the east coast of Yorkshire is in Dutch hands, whereas it used to be carried on almost entirely by Scarborough trawlers; and whether there is any help that he can give to British trawlers to successfully compete with them?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have no reason to suppose that the decline in the landings of herrings at Scarborough is due to the operations of Dutch vessels off the Yorkshire coast. It is, I think, in the main due to causes which have affected the industry as a whole. With the decline of the foreign market for herrings there has been a tendency for the drifters which formerly visited Scarborough to concentrate on other ports affording better facilities for the curing and marketing of their product.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE ACT, 1930.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the copy sent of a resolution passed by the Witham First District Internal Drainage Board urging the Government to make grants available immediately, so that the heavy burdens at present placed upon internal drainage districts arising out of the operation of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, may be substantially relieved; and whether he will take action on the lines of the resolution?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I received the resolution referred to as recently as 3rd April, and it is, of course, receiving the most careful consideration. I regret that I am not in a position to make a further statement. As my hon. Friend will realise, it raises an important question of principle.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps the Government propose to take to bridge the difference between the high cost of feeding stuffs and the price of bacon desired by the consumer?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not yet able to make any statement as to the future arrangements for the bacon industry.

Mr. De la Bére: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how easily the situation can affect the political opinion of some of the best supporters of the Government if nothing is done to satisfy them in their unhappy plight?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware, of course, of the position of the bacon industry. I will make a statement of policy on the subject at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Price: In view of the fact that prices have risen so much in recent months, will the Minister consider enlarging the acreage under potatoes in this country, which would provide a very useful pig food?

Mr. Morrison: There is another question dealing with that point.

WHEAT.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what increase in acreage of spring wheat has been arranged, in view of the high prices ruling and the present shortage of supplies; and what provision for the increase of this year's winter sowing, if any, has been made?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is for farmers themselves to decide how much land to sow to wheat or any other crop. I have no information as to the current area sown to spring and winter wheat respectively. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the acreage under wheat in the United Kingdom has increased by over 40 per cent. in recent years.

Mr. Leckie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the steadily advancing price of wheat and the exceptionally high figure it has now reached, he will take powers to control it, as was done in the Great War, thus preventing hardship and discontent among the people?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. Although the price of wheat has advanced from the abnormally low levels of recent years, it is still lower than in any of the years 1924 to 1929. In any case, the increase that has occurred recently is due to world causes which the Government cannot control.

POTATOES.

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the views expressed by the Food Council in their Annual Report that the serious reduction of acreage under potatoes in 1936, as against 1933, makes it advisable to consider the suspension of the levy of £5 per acre on plantings in excess of each producer's basic acreage; and whether he proposes to take any action thereon?

Colonel Burton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the diminishing number of


acres being cultivated for potatoes; and whether it is his intention to request the Potato Marketing Board to suspend penalties upon potato growers who are willing to increase their output?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the acreage under potatoes in Great Britain in the last three years has declined from the exceptionally high figure of 1933, when producers' prices were very low. The aggregate of the basic acreage of producers registered under the Potato Marketing Scheme is 646,000 acres, an area more than sufficient, with an average yield and allowing for the production of unregistered producers, to supply normal requirements of home-produced potatoes. I have no doubt that the Potato Marketing Board will give due consideration to the views recently expressed by the Food Council in regard to this matter when considering their policy for the current year.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is not the Minister aware that included in the present acreage is land which is being used by farmers for other purposes, and will he tell us why, if there is a shortage, other people who are willing to grow potatoes should not be allowed to do so?

Mr. Morrison: I do not admit that there is a shortage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would point out to the House that the yield of potatoes is more important than the acreage. The figures of acreage do not give a proper picture of what is taking place. If the right hon. Gentleman desires, I will send him the acreage and tonnage figures for recent years, and I think he will find that the same acreage has now a very different yield.

Mr. Alexander: Is the Minister not aware that King Edward potatoes are being charged for at £10 a ton, and that many of the poorer classes of people cannot buy potatoes?

Mr. Sandys: In considering agricultural policy will the Government bear in mind that the recent report of the Advisory Committee on Nutrition advocated increased consumption of potatoes?

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his wife when he gets home and ask her what she has to pay for potatoes?

Mr. Morrison: I shall not be home.

BRITISH SUGAR CORPORATION (PULP BAG PURCHASES).

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the action of the British Sugar Corporation placing a large order for jute goods manufactured in Calcutta; and whether, in view of the prevailing unemployment in the United Kingdom jute industry, he will represent to the corporation the desirability of purchasing jute goods manufactured in the United Kingdom?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Under the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936, the Sugar Commission are empowered to control the purchase by the British Sugar Corporation of material not wholly manufactured in the United Kingdom. I am informed that in view of the disparity between the quotations which the corporation received from United Kingdom and Calcutta manufacturers respectively, for beet pulp bags for the forthcoming campaign, the Commission did not feel that they would be justified in requiring the corporation to purchase these particular bags from United Kingdom sources. In the case of sugar bags, however, I understand that the corporation have decided to place the whole of their orders in the United Kingdom and they are prepared to place the balance of their orders for pulp bags in this country if the gap between the two quotations can be substantially reduced.

Mr. Foot: Are we to understand, with regard to the last part of the question, that the Minister is making no further representation on this subject to the Commission?

Mr. Morrison: Under the Act which was passed as recently as last year Parliament gave complete discretion in this matter to the Commission. I have no power under the Act, to which I am as subject as the Commission, to intervene.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the Corporation are willing to place the balance of the order with the United Kingdom trade, if the difference in price be closed up by the United Kingdom trade, why did the Corporation not ask the United Kingdom trade if they could quote a lower price and inform them that the order was being, or had been, sent to Calcutta?

Mr. Morrison: It is implicit in the answer which I gave that quotations had been received from both sources. If the hon. Lady has any particular information in regard to this matter she must communicate it to the Commission. If she cares to send it to me, I will see that it reaches them.

MILK MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the failure of the Milk Act to provide the guaranteed minimum price for manufactured milk of 5d. in the summer months and 6d. per gallon in winter, it is the intention of the Government to amend the provisions in that Act?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) on 25th March.

Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any method by which these conditions can be rectified?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the answer to which I am referring him is somewhat complicated, but I think that he will get from it the answer which he requires.

Viscountess Astor: If we do not get the answer desired, can we get a further answer from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Morrison: I shall be happy to consider any representations addressed to me by the Noble Lady.

Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear. You will get them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (SITUATION).

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make on the position in India?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): I explained the main facts of the situation in India in my answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on Tuesday. They are briefly that, in each of the six Provinces where the Congress had obtained a majority in the Legislature, the Governors took the correct constitutional course of approaching first the leader of the majority party and inviting him to form

a Ministry. These invitations were, however, declined, the reason for the refusal being that the Governors were unable to give the undertaking which had been demanded as the condition of forming Ministries, namely, that they should promise there and then that they would not use the special powers conferred upon them by the Act. I feel sure that no doubt will be felt in any quarter of the House that it was impossible for any Governor to give the undertakings sought from him. Had he done so, he would have had to divest himself of the responsibilities specifically placed upon him by Parliament through the Act and the Instrument of Instructions, and also in so doing to have ignored the pledges given to minorities and others.
It is, of course, possible that the Provincial Congress leaders, in making this demand, were not conscious of its effects and implications, and that there existed such misunderstandings as were disclosed by Mr. Gandhi's statement issued on 30th March, which has been the cause of so much confusion both here and in India. If this is the position and if Mr. Gandhi or anyone else representing the Congress, recognising the real constitutional position as it has now been explained, were to express a desire in these altered circumstances to see the Viceroy, I have little doubt that His Excellency would be most willing to approach any such request with every desire to reach an understanding as to what the position of the Provincial representatives of the Congress really is. Meanwhile the King's Government is being carried on in these six Provinces by Ministers whose public-spirited action in assuming responsibilities in most difficult circumstances the House would, I am sure, wish fully to recognise.
This is the position, so far as it is possible to explain it within the limits now open to me. I can only express a sincere hope—which I am sure Members on all sides of the House will share—that further consideration will lead the representatives of the majority party in the six Provinces in question to reconsider their refusal to assume the responsibilities which their return by their constituents as the majority party in the Legislatures has imposed upon them, and that they will before long realise the magnitude of the opportunities available to them. If they do so, they may be confident, as


they have already been assured, that they can depend upon the most cordial co-operation and support from the Governors.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: Monday: Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.
Tuesday: It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil and Revenue Departments Estimates, and to consider Class VII, Buildings Votes 10 and 8, in Committee.
Wednesday: Committee stage of the Special Areas (Amendment) Bill.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Second

Reading of the Public Records (Scotland) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Maternity Services (Scotland) Bill, and of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Bill.

Friday: Consideration of private Members' Bills.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to Monday's business, it is not, I take it, the intention to embark on the remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill at a very advanced hour?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to get that Bill by the end of the month, and, if it should be that the proceedings on the Ministers of the Crown Bill are concluded in good time, we should hope to make progress with it.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 101.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
3.51 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Acland, R. T. O. (Barnstaple)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Errington, E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Albery, Sir Irving
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Findlay, Sir E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fleming, E. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Foot, D. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Assheton, R.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Aster, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crooke, J. S.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Groom-Johnson, R. P.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Bernays, R. H.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Granville, E. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Culverwell, C. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Blinded, Sir J.
navies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon, J.


Bottom, A. C.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Boulton, W. W.
De la Bère, R.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Denville, Alfred
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Brass, Sir W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Guy, J. C. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Bull, B. B.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hannah, I. C.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Butler, R. A.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Harbord, A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Hartington, Marquess of


Castlereagh, Viscount
Duncan, J. A. L.
Harvey, Sir G.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Dunglass, Lord
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Isli gton, E.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ellis, Sir G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Hepworth, J.


Channon, H.
Elmley, Viscount
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Emery, J. F.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Christie, J. A.
Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.




Hopkinson, A.
Mayhew, LI.-Col. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Scott, Lord William


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)
Somerset, T.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hunter, T.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Munro, P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


James, Wing-commander A. W. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Keeling, E. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Patrick, C. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Peat, C. U.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Peters, Dr. s. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Latham, Sir P.
Pilkington, R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Leckie, J. A.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tate, Mavis C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P,
Porritt, R. W.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Levy, T.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Lewis, O.
Ramsbotham, H.
Touche, G. C.


Liddall, W. S.
Rankin, Sir R.
Train, Sir J.


Lindsay, K. M.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Turton, R. H.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col, J. J
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lyons, A. M.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Warrender, Sir V.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Watt, G. S. H.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ropner, Colonel L.
White, H. Graham


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


McKie, J. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maitland, A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mander, G. le M.
Salt, E. W.
Wragg, H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.



Markham, S. F.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Sandys, E. D.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sanders, W. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Bevan, A.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Burke, W. A.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooks, F. S.
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
McGovern, J.
Thorne, W.


Debbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Crenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.



Resolution agreed to.

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 23rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the Regulation of Wages of Workers in Agriculture in Scotland, and for purposes incidental thereto." [Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time."
This Measure will concern at least 2,000,000 persons. It is designed to enable them to participate in the benefits of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act on a voluntary basis. That Act has certainly proved to be one of the most beneficial and popular of our insurance Measures. It is interesting on this occasion to see the extent of the operation of that Act today. Some 4,500,000 persons, widows, wives and children, have participated in the pensions and allowances provided by the Act; some £350,000,000 has been paid in pensions and allowances, and a further £170,000,000 has been paid to persons over the age of 70 by virtue of the Act's provisions; and at the end of last year 1,900,000 persons under the age of 70 were in receipt of pensions and allowances, while a further 1,100,000 were in receipt of over-70 pensions.
Members of the House are, of course, well aware that the persons who have these benefits to-day and have received them in the past are, in broad, persons who are already compulsorily insured under the National Health Insurance Act or who, having once been insurably employed, have elected afterwards to become voluntary contributors. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the principal Act referred to the beneficial effect that the Measure was likely to have on a considerable section of the life of the nation, and it has indeed proved to be a most successful and vital part of our great social insurance system. But there was one considerable gap in its provisions, and I think every Member will agree with me when I say that there have been persistent requests from a section of the community, many of whom pay to help to provide for others this protection which they need just as much themselves. I

know that the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite will agree with me that our scheme of social insurance, considerable and extensive as it is, cannot be regarded as complete so long as persons with small incomes but not themselves insurably employed are unable to share in its benefits.
It is most interesting to look at a list of the variety of callings of people who will be concerned with this Measure. This Bill has been popularly called "The Black-Coated Workers' Bill." That does not by any means adequately describe its scope. It affects a good many people who work most of the time without any coat at all, and I think this afternoon of all kinds and conditions of men and women, small shopkeepers of all kinds, newsagents, tobacconists, the owners of the small village shops, various independent workers like the plumber, the joiner, the chimney sweep and the village blacksmith, the hedger, the ditcher, the thatcher, the carter and the woodcutter; and let me assure some hon. Members who have seen me recently in this connection, it includes many women working in independent occupations, like the dressmaker, the music teacher and women engaged in domestic duties. There is also a large number of other independent workers, like the free-lance journalist, illustrators and smallholders, and in addition we must not forget that there are others, men and women, who are employed under a contract of service but are excluded from the present scheme because their rate of remuneration is over £250 per annum and they are not engaged in manual labour.
All these will be affected by this Measure, also certain accountants, bank clerks, salesmen, travellers, as well as the skippers of fishing trawlers and the hard-hit class of engineers in the mercantile marine, who at present are not in the scheme. I also think of ministers of religion. I know so well that large numbers of them find it difficult, as do their churches, to make such provision as is made by this Measure. There are also many men teachers who, we all know, desire to make provision for widows' and orphans' pensions. That is just a small list—I could extend it—of the men and women who will be affected by these proposals and about whom we shall all be thinking this afternoon. They are examples of many types of persons who will be enabled to obtain, at any rate,


some measure of insurance protection under this scheme.
If the House will bear with me I shall first refer to some of the difficulties of a scheme of this character and to the necessity for laying down certain conditions in the interests of the solvency of the scheme and in justice to the beneficiaries and the State. With this particular problem many Ministers who have occupied my position have endeavoured to deal, and I hope that all of them will be glad to see a Measure of this kind put on the Statute Book. I think it can be said—I do not believe that there is much opposition to the statement—that it would be almost impossible to make a scheme of this kind compulsory. I do not know whether it is desirable to do so, and in any event it is almost impossible to make a scheme of the kind compulsory, because experience has undoubtedly shown—the hon. Gentleman opposite who is taking part in the Debate will confirm me—that compulsory contributions can be successfully collected only when linked with the payment of wages, and when responsibility for their due payment is fixed upon an employer, and many of the beneficiaries under this scheme will not be under a contract of service to an employer.
There is another aspect on which I must dwell in relation to the financial responsibility which we all have to bear in passing a Measure of this kind. Undoubtedly a scheme of voluntary insurance does involve a certain amount of risk. A voluntary scheme of this character must inevitably be heavily weighted against the State which is guaranteeing it. Why do I say that? Because we cannot disguise the fact that a person quite naturally—I am not criticising—who satisfies the broad qualifying conditions of the scheme can in the first place make a proposal for insurance at a time most suitable to himself, and further in the case of an insurance with the attractions of widows' and orphans' pensions the individual is likely to wait until he contemplates marriage or possibly until he has children, and in some cases, as we know, until he begins to suspect that he may not be a first-class life. It is more than reasonable, therefore, it is essential, that if the scheme is not to be unfair between applicants and not indefensibly expensive

to the taxpayer, we must lay down two broad principles, with which I hope the House will agree. In the first place, in a voluntary scheme of this character it is obvious that contributions should increase with the age of entrants and, as there is to be no medical examination whatever, there must be a substantial waiting period before benefits are payable.
But I must warn the House that, even with these conditions, there is bound to be a considerable selection against the scheme and we have to recognise—and the Chancellor has recognised it—that a great part of the cost of this adverse selection against an insurance scheme of this kind must fall on the Exchequer, and unless the Exchequer were willing to take its part, the scheme would be quite impossible. Many of these difficulties—I hope all—have been surmounted, and fair and reasonable conditions, even generous conditions, have been laid down. I beg hon. Members to realise that this is an insurance scheme, and provision must be made for the payment of an adequate number of premiums and matters of that kind. It would be impossible in a scheme of this kind, for instance, for someone to come along at a particular age and say, "I will now give you a cheque for a certain amount of back contributions which I reckon I should have paid at the rate of so much a week, and that is the contribution that I am going to make to the scheme." No insurance institution in the country, no State, could father a proposition of that character. Nevertheless, provision will be found in the scheme for matters which, I am sure, the House would desire to find there. Notwithstanding the difficulties with which we have had to contend, we have been able to make provision for continuance in insurance even when full contributions have not been paid, and for maintaining the insurance of a contributor who is unable to pay contributions owing to protracted illness which prevents him from earning a living. Those are two most valuable provisions, and I hope the House will agree that they are satisfactory.
Now, may I first describe the position of the permanent part of the scheme, and then deal with matters which will arise, and special provisions that will be made, during the first 12 months. So far as what we call post-initial entrants to the scheme are concerned, the Bill provides for their


acceptance after the first year, up to the age of 40, at a rate of contribution which varies according to the age of the entrant. The House will see the rates specified in the Government Actuary's White Paper and the consequences to the national Exchequer which arise therefrom, and also in the Memorandum which is attached to the Bill. Not so much public attention has been paid, perhaps naturally, to the permanent part of the scheme, but I ask the House to pay attention, because it is important, to the substantial assistance which the State is giving so far as the permanent character of the scheme is concerned, particularly in the matter of providing for over-70 pensions to such of these entrants as would not otherwise be entitled to them. These entrants will be accepted at contributions varying according to age, rising from 1s. 3d. a week for men whose age does not exceed 21 to 2s. 11d. a week for men between 39 and 40, the corresponding scale for women being graded from 6d. to 11d. a week.
In order that the House and the country may know what this means from the point of view of benefit to anyone who comes in after the first 12 months, I should like to give two illustrations. I will take a man of 40 who pays 2s. 11d. a week. If the contribution represented the full value of the benefits of the scheme, including the cost of pensions over 70, it would mean that a married man of 40, instead of paying 2s. 11d., would have to pay 5s. 1d. Similarly a woman of the age of 40, if she came in after the first year she would have to pay only 11d. but, if the full actuarial value was taken into account, without any aid from the Exchequer at all, instead of having to pay 11d. she would have to pay 2s. 4d. Contributions of this order might well be prohibitive for the persons for whom the scheme is designed. To show how the respective contributions of the individuals and of the State, which is coming to their assistance, have been apportioned in respect to this very vital matter of post-initial entrants, both men and women will only pay contributions equivalent in the average case to the benefits up to the age of 70, leaving the Exchequer to pay the whole cost of administration and to bear the strain due to selection against the scheme, which will certainly be heavy a t the higher ages, and also the cost of pensions at 70, to which, in a substantial number of cases, the persons concerned would not otherwise be entitled.
Therefore, the scheme is of a particularly favourable and attractive character and should be of real assistance to the men and women whom we all desire to benefit.
Now I should like to say something about the initial entrants who come in during the first year. One of the main reasons for the introduction of the scheme was to give full opportunity for the enjoyment of these benefits to certain sections of the community who have never been within the scope of compulsory insurance, and, therefore, have never had a chance of voluntary insurance. There are also a number of people who have had an opportunity of voluntary insurance for some of these purposes and have missed it, but a great section of people, I have recently discovered, have never had a chance of coming within a scheme of this character, and, therefore, the Government believe that it is certainly justifiable to give them a special opportunity on a more generous scale than that proposed permanently. Therefore, the Bill permits of entrance within a year of the inception of the scheme at a favourable flat rate, subject to a maximum age limit of 55. I saw a statement in one of the insurance papers that they never expected the Government would be able to make the age as late as 55. It is a very valuaable feature of the scheme. Indeed, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say it is a wonderful bargain.
No doubt, the great majority of the men who enter will be married, and many of them will be getting on in years. The scheme will, naturally, be most attractive to them. I should like to give two instances—many could be given—of what the scheme may mean to them. In the case of a married man who, by reason of the condition as to means, would not at present be entitled to an old age pension at 70, the actuarial value of all the benefits conferred by the Bill would be equivalent at the age of 45, to a weekly contribution of 6s. 8d., and of 15s. 1d. at the age of 55. That is what he would have to pay on a proper actuarial basis. Instead of that, all he is asked for is 1s. 3d. The capital value of the benefits of the scheme for a man of 55 with an average family is estimated at about £300, and those full benefits can be secured for a minimum payment of £31 5s., and, in fact, a widow could secure a pension for life with children's allowances, when her husband might have contributed no more


than a sum of £6 10s. There can be no question about the generous character of the scheme and the advantages which it undoubtedly affords to all those who will take this wonderful opportunity of coming in during the first 12 months.
I have been referring to the position of the married men, and I would now like to say a word about the unmarried men in relation to this scheme, because there are some good reasons why unmarried men should join the scheme early in life. It may not be known to hon. Members that only one man in 10 remains a bachelor all through life. In the 20–25 year age group the percentage of bachelors is 86; in the 25 to 30 years age group it is 48, and in the 30 to 35 years age group it is 22. With those figures confronting him, the unmarried man of 30 would not be wise to defer insuring until he married, say, seven years later. He would then have to pay 2s. 6d. a week. It is true that he saves 1s. 3d. a week for seven years, but he will have to pay an extra 1s. 3d. a week for 28 years if he lives until 65. I would make this further observation from my personal experience that it is generally much easier for a bachelor to pay 1s. 3d. a week than for a married man to pay 2s. 6d. a week.
Now I come to a more delicate subject as far as Members of this House are concerned, namely, the position in regard to women. I do not hesitate, after reflecting on all that hon. Members have said to me in this connection, to describe this scheme as one largely for the benefit of women. The insurances provided for in the scheme are mainly for the benefit of women. Why do I say that? Because the chief attraction for men will be that the scheme enables them to make provision for widows and children in the event of premature death. I referred just now to the position of men entrants who pay 1s. 3d. a week. I have had the figures provided for me, and when anyone says that women are being unfairly treated under this scheme I would point out that, of that 1s. 3d., nearly 1s. is apportioned for making provision for the wife, widow or children. If 250,000 men enter the scheme in the first year we may very well assume that not more than 30,000 of them will be unmarried, because, as I have said, the scheme will

be most attractive to married men and on that basis, over 200,000 women will benefit either as wives or widows of insured men. Of course, as the number of men entrants increases, so will the number of women who receive benefit rise in proportion. It is in this way that women will be the largest participators in the benefits of the scheme, and in the substantial contributions which the Exchequer is making.
I will give two further illustrations. On the average, 1,000 men dying at the age of 45 will leave 2,400 dependants—widows and children under 16. One can visualise the benefit of the scheme in respect of those women. I would also like the House to realise that at the age of 65, four out of every five women in this country will be widows or married women, and when one discusses the benefits of the scheme to women, that is a vital consideration.

Miss Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the number of men who remain bachelors all their lives. Can he say how many women remain spinsters all their lives?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid I cannot satisfy the hon. Lady's inquiry. It has also been alleged that in the matter of State help women are not being treated as we would desire them to be treated. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is desirable?"] I would put it this way, that we ought to treat them fairly. Deductions have been drawn from the Government Actuary's Report to the effect that the State provides for women's insurance a capital sum of £40 per head, as contrasted with a capital sum of £70 per head for men's insurance. That leaves out of account the material and vital factor that the respective contributions which are being paid, are 1s. 3d. a week for men and 6d. a week for women. If the State grants for each sex bore the same ratio to the contributions, either the State grant for women's insurance must be reduced to £28 per head, or the grant for men's insurance must be increased to £100. On this basis, obviously, in the matter of State grants the new scheme is more generous to women than to men, and, in fact, of that £70 per head paid in respect of men's insurance, by far the greater part will benefit women whether as wives or widows.
I want to say something now with regard to the benefits of the scheme to women and the attractions which, I hope, it will have for them. I believe there will be an appreciable number of women, particularly at the higher ages, who will be desirous of securing old age pensions for a weekly contribution of 6d. The Government Actuary in his report puts the number of unmarried women of middle age at 500,000 who would satisfy the conditions of eligibility in the first year of the scheme. The liability of the Exchequer for each 1,000 women entrants from this section will be £40,000, apart from the liability for over-70 pensions which falls wholly upon the Exchequer. Under the existing National Insurance scheme, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know so well, a woman may be insured before marriage either as an employé or as a voluntary contributor. After marriage, under the present scheme she is not entitled to be insured as a voluntary contributor. Under this scheme the door is open, and those married women whose husbands are not compulsorily insured will, for the first time, be entitled to insure for old age pensions.
The question of the income limits has also been the subject of a certain amount of mild criticism. The Government have introduced this Bill in order to assist a considerable number of persons who are not without their economic difficulties, and who are in much the same position as the average insured person. That was the statement in the Government's manifesto on the subject, and the State is helping them—I suggest quite properly —because it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for persons in this category to make adequate provision for widows and orphans and for old age out of their own resources. Speaking for myself, and I think, possibly, for a number of hon. Members, I do not regard it as the function of State insurance to supersede private thrift, and it is not intended to extend the scheme—involving as it does large Exchequer contributions —to people who might reasonably be regarded as able to provide for their own social protection.
The difference between the £400 a year income limit for men, and the £250 a year income limit for women, is not one of sex differentiation at all. It has relationship to the responsibilities and the

burdens that have to be carried. The married man will need to make provision, not only for his old age but for his wife, and, in case he should not survive, for pension and allowances for his widow and children. The benefit for which the women will insure will be the Old Age Pension and, of course, the contributions are adjusted accordingly. I would point out to those who speak to me about the position of the unmarried women, with incomes of over £250 a year, that when it is a case of giving assistance from the State, it ought to be known that such a woman at age 25 can get to-day from an insurance institution an Old Age pension of 10s. a week for life at the age of 65 next birthday, with a return of premiums in certain cases, for a weekly premium of about 1s. 6d. I have listened to all that has been said on that point, and it is a cause of grief to me that I have to disagree with some of my hon. Friends on this matter, even though the disagreement may be only a temporary one. I would ask them to remember that the greater part of the man's risk is the security of his wife in her old age, or his widow and children in the event of his premature death, and there is no such cover available for him in an insurance institution on any terms that he could reasonably afford. There is no comparison —I do not hesitate to say so—between the two cases. Under this scheme we give adequate benefit and security according to needs, circumstances, burdens and responsibilities in a fair and proper way. As far as the State contribution and help is concerned, if anything, it errs in favour of women rather than men.
In concluding my observations on this particular matter I should like to remind the House, in order that Members may be able to deal with it when they speak to their constituents, that the rise in the income limit which is proposed in the Bill will give to many people another chance of voluntary insurance in addition to that in connection with National Health Insurance. They will get one more chance, and I hope they will avail themselves of it. Let me say a few words about the stipulations in the Bill regarding persons in receipt of unearned income and the reason why we have made these conditions. The scheme is primarily designed for the assistance of persons who derive a livelihood from earnings. In


their case old age normally involves loss of earnings, while the death of the wage-earner deprives his family of their means of livelihood. But when the income is derived from investments or from other sources not being earned, there is ordinarily little or no loss of income on account of age or death. The man with an income of £400 a year derived from investments alone may have a capital of £10,000 to £12,000, and I do not think it would be fair to the taxpayer to ask him to contribute in such a case.
On the other hand, in the case of persons with small incomes not derived from earnings, women, for instance, who are possessed of small life interests or living on an interest yield on small amounts of capital, it would not be fair to debar them from the benefits of a scheme of provision for old age pensions which is open to persons with much larger incomes derived from earnings. In their case it cannot be said that their income or the equivalent capital enables them to make such provision as I have mentioned. Apart from the reservation as to unearned income, I would point out that the scheme does not debar unoccupied persons from taking part. There must be many persons, especially women, who are compelled to undertake such occasional work, not amounting to insurable employment, as they can find, to eke out a small private income, and who cannot be described as mainly depending upon the earnings thus obtained. I am glad to say that, in general, such persons will at present be qualified for the old age pension at 70, but in the few years before that age is reached it is, I regret to say, too frequently the case that either the capacity for work fails or the difficulty of securing work increases. I think many such persons, particularly women, will be attracted to a plan under which they may obtain the assurance of some income from the age of 65.
I must say a few words about the Exchequer liability under the Bill. It is right that the House should be made aware of what it means. The scheme will impose a considerable liability upon the Exchequer. It can be said with perfect accuracy that some amount of State assistance, in most cases a large amount, will be required to support nearly every pensioner under this scheme. I hope that the House, when it looks upon what are

very considerable proportions of Exchequer aid in this connection, will agree that this is an act of justice and that, therefore, the Exchequer contribution is defendable on that account. It is impossible to present a detailed statement of future income and expenditure under this scheme. We do not know the number of people who will enter, nor do we know—and this is most important from the insurance point of view—the average age and the marital status of the entrants, but it is manifest that at least in the case of entrants at the outset the benefits will have to be provided very largely at the expense of the Exchequer.
As regards men, the great majority will be married. It is estimated that the number of married men in Great Britain aged under 55, not already insured, may be put at about 1,500,000, of whom some three-fourths will be eligible under this scheme. The estimate is that if there are 250,000 men entrants in the first year, the Exchequer liability for benefits up to the age of 70, may be put at £17,500,000. If there are 100,000 women entrants in the first year, the Exchequer liability in respect of them for benefits up to the age of 70 may be put at £4,000,000. Taking these numbers of men and women together, and adding the expenses of administration, the capital value of the Exchequer liability is likely to be £23,000,000 for the 350,000 initial entrants. That is a sum which can be redeemed in 30 years by an annual charge of £1,200,000 which is proposed to be made under the terms of the Financial Resolution.
I cannot prophesy the number of people who will come into the scheme—I hope it will be considerable—but if there is double the number of entrants, 700,000 men and women—and the number may very well be that—the Exchequer liability will be £43,000,000. That excludes the consideration of the financial commitments as far as regards pensions over the age of 70. I have so been been dealing only with the cost of pensions up to that age, but pensioners under this scheme will be guaranteed pensions for life, irrespective of means, and the cost of these old age pensions after the age of 70 will fall directly upon the Exchequer. Here I enter upon a somewhat speculative region. In the case of the person with an income approaching £400 a year, it is highly probable that he would be debarred from getting an old age pension


at 70 on the ground of means. The grant of an over-70 pension to such a person and his wife under the new scheme will impose a definite new charge upon the Exchequer. It is obviously impossible to say what proportion of the new entrants would have qualified for the over-70 pensions on the existing basis, but it is estimated, and I think it is a fair estimate, that half of the men who become special voluntary contributors and a quarter of the women, would not qualify for such pensions on the existing basis. Taking men and women together, the Government Actuary concludes that on the basis of 350,000 initial entrants the present value of the additional cost of over-70 pensions is about £14,000,000. This would, in about 30 years' time, involve an annual charge of over £1,500,000, and for double the number of entrants the corresponding figures are £26,000,000 and £3,000,000 respectively. If we take these two figures together, I think that most hon. Members will agree that the Exchequer is making most substantial contributions to the scheme.
Let me say a few words with regard to one or two matters with which I have been asked to deal, because there has been a certain amount of public correspondence and questions have been asked about them. Let me deal with the position of the existing voluntary contributors. It is very interesting to see what may happen from the consequences of the introduction of this scheme so far as men and women are concerned. The number of voluntary contributors for health and pensions to-day is about 650,000. Before the contributory pensions scheme was introduced there were only 45,000 voluntary contributors. It is evident, therefore, that the voluntary pensions scheme has proved a great attraction to voluntary contributors. There is no doubt—it is no reflection upon the existing insurance scheme—that many persons in the past have been deterred from becoming voluntary contributors by reason of the compulsion to contribute to both health insurance and pensions. In future, persons who become voluntary contributors will not, on ceasing to be insurably employed, be compelled to insure under both schemes, but they may do so if they desire. They will have free choice.
In addition—and I have discussed this matter with the Consultative Council of the Approved Societies—this concession will be the same to existing voluntary contributors, who will be allowed to insure if they like under both schemes as heretofore, or they can insure for health only or for pensions only. There has been some misapprehension in this connection. There is nothing in the Bill which requires these persons to pay increased contributions for health and pensions benefits for which they are at present insured, or to satisfy the conditions as to age, income and residence which apply to the new class of contributors introduced by the Bill. They have the same rights as the new entrants in the matter of benefits on lapse, maintenance of insurance for a minimum payment of 26 contributions a year and graded pensions if they should be unable for any reason to keep up the average of 50 contributions a year.

Mr. Logan: May I take it that whatever their ages may be now, these voluntary classes will be able to come in at a flat rate?

Sir K. Wood: As far as they are concerned, I think their existing rate is most favourable. On transfer, their former insurance will be counted in full towards all the benefits of the new scheme. Let me say a few words as regards persons already possessing pension rights or other analogous rights. There have been a certain number of letters addressed to my Department on this subject, and a certain amount of misapprehension exists as to the scope of the exclusion of persons already securely provided for in regard to pensions equivalent to those provided under the new scheme. The exclusion applies only to employment where superannuation or any provision is by Act of Parliament or by undertakings approved by the Minister of Health. The employments in question are mainly employments under the Crown or under a local or other public authority, employment as clerk or other salaried official by a railway or other statutory company, or permanent employment by persons authorised by Parliament to construct or carry on works of public utility such as gas as electricity.
I want it to be understood that a person in an employer's private scheme


who does not come within the categories I have mentioned can, of course, apply to enter the scheme and receive benefits. Persons who are only protected for old age will be allowed to come under the scheme for widows' and orphans' pensions; a large class to whom the provision applies consists of male teachers and I have to thank their representative bodies for the kind messages they have sent me in relation to this scheme. Regarding the collection of contributions, so far as initial entrants are concerned the present system of stamped cards will be maintained. It is proposed that a card should be stamped each week with the value of the weekly contribution. The stamp will be of the existing health and pension range with two new values of 1s. 3d. and 6d. and the third of 5½d. for an ordinary woman voluntary contributor who has insured for pensions only. So far as the later entrants are concerned, it will not be possible, because of the great variety of rates of contribution, to provide a stamp for each weekly value. A contribution card will, therefore, be specially designed and stamps provided to admit of payment of the half year's premiums by convenient instalments. Cards when stamped will be sent post free to the appropriate central department in England, the Ministry of Health; in Wales, the Welsh Board of Health, and in Scotland, the Department of Health of Scotland.
Applications for admission to the scheme can be made immediately after the passing of the Bill. Every one will be anxious to see it on the Statute Book, but applications need not be postponed until the day fixed for the commencement of the Act, which is 3rd January next. There is a special provision for people who are between 54 and 55 years of age at the commencement of the Act. They may give notice, within the first year of the scheme, but if given after the 55th birthday the insurance will run from the 55th birthday itself.
I submit this scheme to the House as another considerable and desirable addition to our social services. The task of framing such a scheme has not been an easy one. It has baffled many. We had to start with the knowledge that, quite properly, the great bulk of the entrants to the scheme would have much to gain from it, and the dice would be heavily

loaded against the Exchequer. We had at the same time to devise a scheme so that the premiums must be within the resources of those whom we desire to help. The Exchequer does indeed make a substantial contribution to its finances. I emphasise that this scheme is essentially a contributory one. It is a voluntary scheme. It encourages self-help. The State will be helping those who are helping themselves, but who, unaided, find the task well nigh impossible. I think few, if any, will grudge this financial aid to a section of the community, often overlooked, who contribute substantially to the revenue and who, while subject to the same vicissitudes, at present receive none of the benefits given to the insured worker. I can promise the House that we shall examine the precise terms of this Measure when we get it to Committee, but I commend it to the House as one more Measure of British social security and justice and one which I suggest will take a considerable place among social services which are unequalled in the world, and to which in recent years we have made such a substantial contribution.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I can, I think, genuinely and sincerely, on behalf of every Member of the House of Commons, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he has introduced his Bill. An insurance Bill of this kind is naturally very complicated, and I wish I had the felicity which the Minister possesses, especially to disarm his women critics. The House will notice that the Labour party has not put down any Motion in regard to this Measure. We naturally accept these small instalments of State collectivism on the way as it were. Governments in Europe have been talking for a long time past about collective security, but I am satisfied that the ordinary people in all those countries have at the same time been seeking domestic security; and, in so far as this Bill provides that modicum of social security, we welcome the Measure. We have seen the extension of State intervention in insurance increasing from year to year, but this Bill, is about the smallest in its scope of all such Measures that have been introduced. The Minister, however, is an adept at proclaiming loudly what is


to come. He can always make the smallest things look very big.
Without being too critical of the Measure, it may be said that the black-coated workers, so-called, have demanded bread but in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is giving them a bone—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh! "]—as I shall be able to prove later. Whatever criticism may be levelled against the provisions of the Bill, however, they are above all a vindication of the principle of State intervention in social insurance. No private insurance company could possibly provide even these small amounts of benefit at 65 years of age for the same limited weekly contribution, and I hope I may be pardoned for saying that when a Labour Government comes into power one of its first tasks will be to take out of the hands of private enterprise that part of insurance which exploits the industrial and family life of this nation. I am glad the Minister is making this small contribution towards that end. If I had my way the first insurance that I would nationalise would be workmen's compensation, in which 45 per cent. of the premium income is expended in profit and working expenses.
This Bill is obviously the response of the National Government to the insistent and persistent demand of a section of the people for an old age pension. I do not think there is any difference of opinion among Members of all parties in the House that the people of this country are annually becoming more pension-minded. The reason is obvious. The small shopkeeper in particular—a strong element in society in this country—has been complaining for years that he has been placed at a disadvantage by comparison with the policeman, the teacher, the municipal employé and the civil servant, and indeed in some cases by comparison with the ordinary wage-earning class in relation to pensions. Those black-coated people have been left to fend for themselves, and this Bill meets in part their demands. The Bill will establish for the first time in this country a centralised State contributory pensions scheme without any local agents to collect the contributions or administer the benefits. The approved society system is discarded entirely; and so far as pensions are concerned I am almost of opinion that that is all to the good.
There is one thing above all that our successors in this Assembly will find as the generations roll on, that however small the scope of this Bill may be, it does provide a basis for the future on which Governments will be able to establish pensions for almost all classes of the community. That is the greatest value of the Bill. The Minister did not mention the propaganda carried on by the spinsters in this country, and I am wondering whether he will be good enough when he has finished his conversation with his most bitter enemy—

Viscountess Astor: One of his greatest admirers.

Mr. Davies: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will mind my mentioning, in passing, the agitation of the spinsters. Their complaint has some reason behind it. They make the charge with some justification that the unmarried woman within the present pension and National Health Insurance schemes is not securing benefits in proportion to contributions as the wives and widows of male insured persons. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to-night will deal with that complaint. But in considering an extension of our pensions schemes I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman forgot the saddest case of all. I am sure that I speak on behalf of hon. Members in all parties when I say that the most pathetic case under our present pensions scheme is that of the married man, the workman, who arrives at 65 years of age and is discharged from his employment because he gets an old age pension of 10s. a week. His wife may be 63. I have come across cases over and over again of the old gentleman who, though he has contributed towards a pension scheme, when he is dismissed from his job, has to turn to the Poor Law to supplement his old age pension. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have favourably considered that case, but he has obviously not done so.
In spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman has said to-day the Bill is after all but a very small contribution in comparison with the demands of the case. At the moment thousands of working people are arranging with their employers and have established in many industries pensions schemes on a scale which makes the scheme in this Bill look


ridiculous and feeble. In the steel and paper-making industries, and in the cooperative movement, with which I happen to be associated, over 100,000 co-operative employés are already covered by an old age pension scheme which is superior to the one contained in this Bill. There is a growing demand for old age pensions schemes among the working people and they and the best employers are joining together to build up superannuation and pensions schemes to assist old employés at 65 when they are thrown on the State pension of 10s. per week. Therefore, in spite of the welcome we give to this further contribution towards State pensions, it is but a feeble attempt to meet the demands of the people. There has, of course, always been a strong demand for a non-contributory pension scheme, and we must remember that the first old age pension scheme was on a non-contributory basis.
In 1911 the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced his National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance Scheme, and from that date onwards the State, in spite of subsidising social insurance, has, in the main, thrown the cost of these schemes on the employers and work-people. If you calculate the total amount of the workman's contributions to all these schemes, pensions, health, insurance and unemployment, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in a large number of cases, especially in Lancashire, the deductions amount to about 10 per cent. of the total wage earned by the worker. Really, I am beginning to get a little alarmed at the proportion for these purposes which is being deducted from wages. I think I know why our working people are suffering all these deductions so willingly. The reason is that once they pay a contribution they will get benefits without the imposition of a means test. It is astonishing how deep this means test business has cut into the minds and hearts of our people. They will do a great deal to avoid it. Therefore I say, that the main reason why they are willing to see these contributions mounting up week after week by way of deductions from their wages is because there will be no means test when they receive their benefits. The Bill helps in some measure too because there will be no means test after 70 years of age.
The nation is becoming more pension-minded, more especially because the average age at death is being extended every year. There is nothing in this world that a man fears more than to be friendless and helpless in old age. In future, the small shopkeeper, farmer and minister of religion will be given the opportunity voluntarily to follow the workman in this connection. There is one thing which affects me deeply in considering a Bill of this kind. The issue has been raised on many occasions in Motions and speeches in this House. One of the most urgent questions which the Government have to face is not merely the provision of a pension scheme which will satisfy human requirements, but the industrial nations of the world are being brought face to face with something much bigger. We require fewer and fewer working people to produce the same amount of goods, and in the end, no matter what Government may be in office, in the not far distant future they will be compelled to look at pension schemes not in the light of providing bread for aged people but to meet the insistent demand of engineering science so that people can be taken out of industry at an earlier age to make room for the young. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have told us something about that problem to-day. I read with great interest his first book explaining the National Health Insurance Scheme of 1911, and I hope he will not be too conceited when I say that I was one of a large audience which listened to an oration from him on that burning subject.
There are, of course, some criticisms which must be made on the Bill. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more about those approved societies which the department encouraged into existence to cover persons in excepted employments. He has told us that 650,000 voluntary contributors already in approved societies will not be induced to leave their societies; but at the same time he is going to lay down, so I am informed, that voluntary contributors in future will have two cards, one for health insurance and the other for pension purposes. Is not that a backdoor method of inducing contributors to drop health insurance? The right hon. Gentleman has already said that the present voluntary contributor was induced to attach himself to an approved


society because of the pension provisions.. He knows therefore that if the contributions are divided between the two schemes the contributor will be more inclined, to drop health insurance than his pension. There are one or two approved societies whose membership is based almost exclusively on voluntary contributors in excepted employments, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow these societies to die. Whilst he is not going to induce people to leave the approved society he is at the same time taking away potential members from these societies under Clause 13. I hope he will examine this Clause again.
A word about the income limit. Everybody is becoming a little bewildered by these several income limits. There is an income limit of £250 for non-manual workers in National Health Insurance; there is no income limit for manual workers. There is another limit for Unemployment Insurance and another limit still in this Bill— £400 for men and £250 for women. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have abolished some of these different income limits and have made them universal. I can quite see the reasonableness in saying that initial entrants may come in on a flat rate of 1s. 3d. for men and 6d. for women up to 55 years of age. After that, however, the scheme is going to be based on strict actuarial calculations. Under the National Health Insurance scheme Some societies pay additional benefits and some pay none. In the very same families you have people paying the same contributions under that scheme and five or six members of that family receiving different rates of benefits. That is regarded as unsatisfactory. But what is going to happen here? One member of a family will be an initial entrant at 1s. 3d. per week and another member after the first year will come in and pay a different rate of contribution to the same fund and will receive a different rate of benefit.
The right hon. Gentleman is obviously capitalist-minded; that is what is wrong with him. He thinks in the same terms as the Prudential Assurance Company, whilst he is still Minister of Health. He has never developed a collective state of mind towards pensions. I would not like to say that this is exactly an insurance scheme, it cannot be based on insurance principles if you always call upon the State to make up deficiencies. But

right hon. Gentleman can get to an insurance scheme for the time being. I said a few moments ago that the right hon. Gentleman is very clever at making small things look big—not that he is very big himself ! He said in a grandiloquent fashion that the capital cost of this pensions scheme will amount to millions upon millions. This, however, is what the scheme means in simple terms. About 1,000,000 people may come under the scheme, and the total net cost to the Exchequer will be about £1,000,000 per annum. That will be the net result of it all.

Sir K. Wood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: That is what the right hon. Gentleman's own actuary said.

Sir K. Wood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: Let the right hon. Gentleman contradict me later on. At any rate, that is good enough for a politician, especially in dealing with this Government. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear one other thing in mind. Once we say that this is not an insurance scheme based upon actuarial considerations, by relating contributions to benefits, and once we have agreed that the State shall make up deficiencies, it seems to me that we ought to take a bold course and lay down a flat rate of contribution and a flat rate of benefit for all. The right hon. Gentleman was looking round for cheers from this side of the House, but he cannot get them.

Sir K. Wood: I am not seeking them.

Mr. Davies: I would ask him to be good enough to take that point into consideration, because it seems to me that all these insurance schemes are becoming very complicated. It will require a very large staff in the pensions department that is to be set up to decide not only the age of entry—when the man or woman enters —but the weekly contributions—how many contributions are paid—and consequently I feel that in the end there would be by simplification a saving in the costs of administration. I do not wish to say very much more at this stage, because we shall have other opportunities of dealing with the details of the Bill later on. There is one thing, however, to which I must refer. The right hon. Gentleman has managed, for the first time, I think, in the history of the House of Commons, to


secure a united front among all the women Members. Whether it will be a popular front or not I cannot tell.

Mr. Cove: The hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has backed out of it.

Viscountess Astor: How does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Davies: I think the hon. Member has disturbed the equanimity of the Noble Lady. If he has, we shall see how the united front works out in the end; I am not so sure that there will be much backbone in it. There is one feature of this Bill which we naturally welcome. All those who are interested in the endeavours of the trade unions and friendly societies to provide an old age pension will know the tragic side of those efforts. I know of cases where the burden of providing an old age pension of even 5s. a week has been too much for the funds of those societies. Therefore, on that issue alone, this Bill is welcome to some of us, if not indeed to every hon. Member. Having said that, I will turn to another aspect of the Bill, namely, that it tells us in a better form than we have ever been told before the value of insurance as such. Insurance has grown in this country by leaps and bounds in our lifetime—insurance against death, burglary, fire, accidents and injuries of ail kinds—and in the end society is looking for insurance against old age. It is very interesting that as far back as Ibz5—over a century ago—a Select Committee of the House of Commons reported as follows on the value of insurance through friendly societies:
Whenever there is a contingency, the cheapest way of providing against it is by uniting with others so that each man may subject himself to a small deprivation in order that no man may he subjected to a great loss.
That, I think, is the kernel of the Bill that we are discussing to-day. While I criticise the Bill in part, I also welcome its main provisions. No Government can do a better job than to take interest in the aged. It has been said over and over again that a nation which neglects its children is a nation in decay, but I think the statement can go further—a nation that is not kindly disposed to its old people is a nation that in the end must and ought to perish.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I wish to welcome this Bill for precisely what it is—an instalment, and a notable instalment, towards the policy of social security to which we have been devoted ever since my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced the first insurance and pensions Bill in 1912. To that policy we remain devoted, and we shall advocate it until, humanly speaking, there is a system of complete security. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health may congratulate himself on the Bill in that there is already evidence of very great satisfaction from those sections of the community for whose benefit the Bill is primarily introduced. There have been many expressions of satisfaction, and, having regard to the fact that the pensions benefit is so small—10s. a week, a sum which does not bear any relation to the cost of maintenance—I have been touched by the number of letters that I have received from various individuals who were concerned to know whether or not they would come within the terms of the Bill and who were distressed lest by some means of other they would be outside its scope. In passing, let me say that the statement made towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that persons between the ages of 54 and 55 will not be excluded from the benefits of the Measure is some answer to many anxious inquiries that I have received, and will relieve the feelings of those people.
We in this country are entitled to take pride in our system of social insurance. We were pioneers in it, we made the experiment and others followed; and I think we have a system which is superior to that of any other country. For the last 30 years, Parliament has been building up this system of social insurance, not according to any comprehensive plan or by any bold scheme of national superannuation, such as is being developed at the present time in the United States of America, but by what might be described as a patchwork policy of progress. Bills have been introduced at one time or another to meet some social stress or social distress, or some economic strain, and the result is that to-day we have a system which is full of anomalies. There


may be something to be said for proceeding slowly in these matters, but there is the disadvantage that each patchwork Bill that is introduced creates a certain number of anomalies which leave a sense of dissatisfaction and injustice on the part of those who are outside the scope of it. Some of those anomalies are removed by this Bill, and for that reason we welcome the Bill.
At the same time, the Bill is not by any means free from criticism, and I would like to make one or two criticisms. My right hon. Friend dealt with the criticism which has been made with regard to the fixing of the income limit, and in particular the point which has been urged with great force by the womens' organisations. He dealt with that matter with a tact, a courtesy, I think I may say a charm, and certainly an ability which everybody will recognise, but I do not think that anything he said removed from me the conviction, or altered the plain fact, that the fixing of an income limit of £250 will debar from the benefits of this scheme a very large number of women who certainly are not immune from any of the disabilities, the chances of fate or the slings and arrows of outraged fortune which make it very necessary for them to come within the scheme. That is my feeling and my answer to the reply which my right hon. Friend saw fit to make to the claims of the women with regard to this matter.
I would like to ask why these particular limits have been fixed. If it is not a question which is irrelevant to the discussion, I would ask whether the fixing of these limits has any relation to the Bill which we expect later on with regard to unemployment insurance? If my right hon. Friend, when he replies, says that that is not the case, and if other limits are fixed in that Bill, then the confusion of limits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton referred, will probably be still further augmented. I should be glad to know what is the position in that respect, because I think that in the case of unemployment insurance there is a demand for a higher limit than the one at present fixed.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton referred to the National Spinsters' Association and asked for some information on that matter. I would like to associate myself with his request for further information. I think that movement may

congratulate itself on the fact that this Bill, within certain limits, meets part of the demands put forward by it in that a certain number of unmarried women over the age of 55 will be entitled to draw a benefit after the payment of a reasonable number of contributions. Whatever criticisms may be made against this Bill by those who may consider that they are not fairly treated, I think no criticism can be made by those who come within the scheme in the first year between the ages of 54 and 55. Whatever may be said by any other section, they certainly will get a very generous deal.
It has been represented to me—and I would like this matter to be dealt with by the Minister who replies—that those who are now voluntary contributors under the existing scheme will have the option to contract out of the existing scheme and to come within the new proposals. It has been suggested to me in certain quarters that it would be much better if they had positively to contract out instead of being automatically transferred to the new Bill unless they express a contrary wish. [Interruption.] That point has been mentioned to me, and no doubt hon. Members will express their opinions on it in the course of the Debate. I hope that this Bill may be the last Bill dealing with social insurance in this country, unless it is the Bill which we anticipate with regard to Unemployment Insurance, to be introduced on the instalment plan.
We have had a very wide experience in this matter in this country, and the situation is changing with regard to this question rapidly. This is accumulating a very serious and increasing liability for old age owing to the increased longevity of the community and the changes in the trend of the population. It is clear that: as years go on, the nation will have a greater liability for old age, and that liability will have to be supported, in all probability, by a very much smaller number of workers. Our system having grown up in the way it has, I do not think that Parliament or the country as a 'whole has the problem in complete perspective. I would say now what I have said in this House on many previous occasions, and which I keep on repeating. The time has come when there should be a complete and comprehensive inquiry into the whole question of old age, and it should


be related, in particular, to that problem mentioned by my hon. Friend above the Gangway when speaking just now of the exit from industry.
The United States of America are building up a complete, proper and comprehensive superannuation scheme. We in this country are prepared to pay State pensions of 10s. a week to over 300,000 individuals who are over 65 and are continuing in their work. I do not blame them for continuing in their work, if their pension is only 10s. a week, but it may very well be that, when the rearmament programme is exhausted and perhaps another trade cycle is upon us and industry is on the ebb, this country may be driven to consider every conceivable means for relieving the distress of unemployment. Before those days it will be of the greatest value if we are ready to launch a comprehensive scheme of superannuation. The task is a great one. Our system is now so complicated, has grown up in such a haphazard way and is administered in so many different forms, that it must be the task of a Royal Commission, and the sooner it is set up to consider what is a very important question for the future of the people the better it will be for all concerned, and the many who come after. I express a welcome to this Bill for what it is—an enlargement and an instalment of our system of social security. If my right hon. Friend will, in the course of the later stages of this Bill, see his way to consider, and perhaps to meet, some of the criticisms which we make, we will, when we reach the Third Reading stage, give it a more cordial reception than we can give it at the present time.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), in his lively if critical speech, divided hon. Members in this House into capitalist-minded and State-minded. Whatever section of opinion we represent, I am certain that all Members would like to congratulate the Government upon the Measure they have brought forward this afternoon. Flattering as the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westhoughton was, that this Bill was merely the product of the ingenuity of the Minister of Health and showed his Maskelyne-Devant quality of making something out of nothing, I

am afraid that that charge will not really bear inspection. The Bill certainly confers very substantial advantages upon an important section of the community. For the first time an entirely new class has come within the field of insurance—the smaller shopkeepers, assistants, clerks and even ministers of religion. Many of these people have come to expect a certain standard of comfort in their personal surroundings, and many of them possess considerable education. Probably the greater number of them occupy those detached houses which we see stretching in ever greater lines along the great arterial roads leading from our cities. If you went into their houses you would see substantial sets of furniture bought on the instalment system, perhaps from Drages, and if you went into their garages you might find a car. But in times of economic stress, very little stands between the apparent prosperity of these people and total indigence.
The statistical department of the London Press Exchange has given an extremely interesting analysis of the families of this country. It has divided the families roughly into three groups which I will call A. B, and C. The first group, A, comprises 8,642,000 families which earn under £4 a week; the second group, B, comprises 2,511,000 families who earn between £4 and £10 a week, roughly the class covered by the present Bill; while group C, the considerably more prosperous, consist of 616,000 families earning over £10 a week. As the present Bill covers those earning just £4 over to under £8 a week probably at least two-thirds of this class B will come within the category of the Bill. That class B represents no less than 21.3 per cent. of all the families of this country. An analysis of areas likewise shows interesting results. As might be expected, London, which has enjoyed prosperity for a longer period perhaps than any other area, shows the highest percentage of 25 per cent. Even South Wales, which for years has suffered the full bitterness of economic depression, can show 15 per cent., Lancashire 18.8 per cent., and Scotland, ever the home of thrift, 21 per cent.
I was extremely interested on looking through a book written by Colin Clark, University lecturer in statistics at Cambridge, by the figures of unemployment


in the black-coated class. In spite of much that has been written and said to the contrary, the figures show that unemployment in this class is nowhere near so prevalent as among unskilled manual workers. The figures which Colin Clark chooses come from 1931, a year of very great industrial depression, and in that period unemployment among unskilled manual workers was no less than 30.5 per cent. But black-coated workers, such as salesmen and shop assistants, showed only 7.9 per cent., and clerks and typists 5.5 per cent. This fact brings me to the main point which I would like briefly to stress in my speech. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White), in his interesting speech this afternoon, told us how our social service system has grown up by piecemeal methods. We in this country, I believe, enjoy a unique and enviable position in regard to our social services, but these social services, admirable as they are, have, as the hon. Member says, grown up in the course of the last 30 years by piece-meal methods. As occasion arose, or as popular opinion demanded, successive Governments devised machinery to meet particular needs. I feel that perhaps the time has come, as the hon. Member said, to institute an inquiry over the whole field of our social services. How, for instance, does this new insurance scheme which we are adopting to-day, fit into the general scheme of our social services?
I would like to put myself for one or two minutes, firstly, in the position of a working-class man, and then of a black-coated worker, and try to enumerate with how many separate authorities chance may bring me into contact. If I am a working-class man and I send my child to school, or if my house is scheduled in a slum area, or if, through some misfortune, I require public assistance, I deal directly with local authorities, even when those local authorities, as often happens nowadays, are enjoying substantial grants from the national Exchequer. If, on the other hand, through some misfortune I fall out of work, and my insurance runs its course, and I come under unemployment assistance, local officers of the central authority, in this case the Minister of Labour, deal with my particular problems. Here again is a second type of organisation. But if I fall ill, or through my decease my wife is entitled to a

widow's pension, in all probability an approved society, working in co-operation with the Ministry of Health, will study my case. If I am fortunate enough to reach the age of 70, then officers of the Board of Customs and Excise deal with me—another authority altogether. I am entitled to a pension over 70 on a noncontributory basis, but I have to contribute towards pensions up to that time.
The black-coated worker who comes into this scheme enjoys the advantages of widows' and old age pensions but does not enjoy the advantages of his fellow worker of health benefit. Again there is an apparent division in the numbers covered by the various schemes. Unemployment insurance is calculated to cover two—thirds of the working population, including their dependants, but contributory pensions cover some 19,000,000 but not in every case the dependants of those insured. The working population of this country contributes towards health and unemployment insurance, but does not contribute towards education, housing, unemployment assistance or public assistance.
These few facts should convince us that the time has come for a survey over the whole field of the social services, to see whether some form of co-ordination is necessary, and, perhaps, whether certain classes have claims upon benefits which they do not at present enjoy; and, lastly, to see that the vast sums to be spent annually are spent to the best advaneage. This factor becomes all the more important when we realise, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) said, that the age status of the population is changing. In the next 30 years we shall see a smaller working-class population supporting a larger insurance-receiving population. In fact the figures show that in 1931 of children under 15, there were 9,000,000, between 15 and 65 there were 31,920,000, and over 65 just under 4,000,000. But by 1961 the population will have changed to the following degree—under nine years, 5,500,000; between 15 and 65,28,800,000; and over 65,5,000,000, an increase of 1,000,000. Therefore, I feel that our social services, admirable as they are at the present moment, can bear looking into. Certainly the man who receives insurance must sometimes be extremely muddled by the number of separate authorities with which


he has to deal. He must feel something like the Scotsman who met a friend on the way to look for an undertaker because his wife was ill. He said, "Why man, are you looking for an undertaker?
It is a doctor you want." "Naw, naw man," he replied, "I can't afford to deal with middlemen."

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: It would be ungracious not to recognise the extension of the advantages and benefits which this Measure confers. I do not propose to deal with some of its shortcomings, such as the discrimination between men and women, but to refer particularly to a section of people who may be voluntarily insured at the present time, but who will be excluded under the provisions of this particular Measure. The purpose of the Bill is stated to be an extension of the benefits of voluntary insurance, but there are other purposes of the Bill that are unfortunately not so clearly stated. There are restrictions and cancellations of existing rights that are a real disadvantage to tens of thousands of prospective voluntarily insured persons, and I do not think it would be unfair to say that the Memorandum to the Bill is nothing short of a misleading prospectus inasmuch as it fails to refer to these limitations as well as to the extensions. The Minister did not indicate why the extensions should not have been superimposed upon existing legislation, leaving existing conditions unaffected and giving the community the net advantage of the extension. It has been made clear that those who are already insured, voluntarily and otherwise, will be unaffected, but even in their case they must contract in in order to secure a continuation of their benefits.
At the present time health and pensions insurance arrangements are interlocked, and it has apparently been the specific purpose of the Government to break that interlocking for reasons that are not very clear. The Bill breaks that connection, and I fail to see why we should attempt in this Measure to cancel or interfere with advantages that have been conferred by previous legislation. Even if it is desired to terminate the interlocking arrangements and break into separate divisions the health and the widows', orphans' and old age pensions arrangements, why should it not be possible for those who

are already insured in that way to maintain their insurance if they desire and to take advantage of the break to contract out rather than be required to contract in? By a mistake, by misinformation, by indifference or ignorance, it may very well be that a number of the people who are insured in that way at the present time will lose the advantages they presently enjoy and find themselves at a serious disadvantage in a short time.
What is most important for people who are already members of statutory insurance superannuation schemes who are in excepted employment is that they will be precluded in this Measure from becoming members voluntarily of the health and old age pensions provisions. It is true that this Measure will open the gate and be an advantage to those who are in receipt of more than £250 per year. It will give an advantage to them inasmuch as they will be able to take advantage of the widows' and orphans' section for which they may not be eligible, but, at the same time, it will close the gate and be a serious disadvantage to those who are receiving below £250 and who, under existing legislation, can take advantage of health insurance and old age pensions provisions. There are approved societies that were set up for the purpose of catering for that class of person, and they will be closed down and destroyed under this Bill. For those with remuneration exceeding £250, the existing Act provides that widows' and orphans' pensions can only be maintained by their becoming insured for all these three purposes.
Many members of the railway clerical staffs do not become members of an excepted employment immediately. Some are compulsorily required to take up insurance, because they do not immediately on joining the employ of the companies become members of the superannuation funds. They are not at once excepted persons such as they will subsequently become on obtaining such membership. They are required to pay for varying periods, but not necessarily, 104 contributions, which will make them members. Under the 1929 Act they had to pay in that manner without any special benefit, and that Act really imposed a tax, for it was a real imposition on the people concerned without any contingent or subsequent benefit. Women clerks not only


had to pay that contribution, but a further tax because, when passing into excepted employment, they had been paying for widows' and orphans' pensions for which any subsequent benefit was extremely unlikely.
There must have been good and excellent reasons for giving excepted persons the right of voluntary insurance in the past. Otherwise, it would not have been conferred in the Acts as they exist. I submit that these good reasons still remain. Indeed, they become stronger in so far as there are continuing extensions of contributory insurance benefits. It is true that the people to whom I refer have provision through a contract with their employers for payment during sickness and for superannuation, but there are, in addition, under the insurance scheme treatment and other benefits that are not included in these private schemes. It seems to me that there is no sound reason why they should not be allowed, if they wish to have the opportunity, to become voluntary contributors for health and old age pensions by paying the amount which is required by way of premium.
This Measure is a reversal of the legislation and social policy that was initiated by a Conservative Government, was extended by a Labour Government, and was affirmed and consolidated in the Act of the National Government in 1936. It is a very desirable thing that everybody in the community should have the advantage of some kind of basic or minimum protection in all these forms of insurance. It seems to me, therefore, in this Measure this most extraordinary unfair, and indeed, an unadvertised phase of the present Bill, while it confers an extension of benefit on some sections of the community at the same time imposes restrictions and limitations on others, and it will certainly destroy approved health societies which are doing exceedingly useful work for their members and are a valuable asset to the social insurance of the community as a whole.
I hope that the Government will give attention to this serious phase of the present Measure, which is a real blot on its advantages and will destroy a form of insurance that is very valuable to people who are in statutory superannuation funds. It really gives a wrong impression compared with the favourable prospectus of

this Bill, which gives an unfair representation of its benefits because of these restrictions. Indeed the refusal to allow these people to take up voluntary insurance must be a substantial financial setoff to the much advertised gain to the other section which will come within the ambit of the scheme. I am not in a position to state the number of people who will be affected or the approximate amount of that saving, but it must certainly be substantial. There is no good reason for it, and I hope the Government will so amend the Measure as to allow the continuance of this valuable insurance to this considerable section of the community.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: I am glad to have the opportunity of joining in the general welcome which has been extended from all quarters of the House to this Measure. Several hon. Members have referred, and, I think, with pardonable pride, to the fact that existing schemes of National Health Insurance and old age pensions have withstood since their inception the many vicissitudes through which this country has passed. Since there have been many troubles of a financial character which might have affected the stability of existing schemes, it is evident that in the consideration of any scheme of pensions or superannuation, the first fundamental consideration should be that it is on a sound financial basis. As far as I have been able to judge from a consideration of the Bill, the Financial Memorandum accompanying it, and the Government actuary's report, I am satisfied that this Measure, like its parents, is founded on such a financial basis as to be able to survive the troubles to which it will undoubtedly be subjected.
I should like to refer but in general terms to one or two detailed criticisms which have been made. It will be recognised that in any scheme, whether it be for pensions or superannuation, one of the first problems always arises from the position of the initial entrants. In the case of a superannuation scheme introduced by an employer, the first thing to be done is to make suitable provision for the initial entrants, because the fact that they are initial entrants in itself creates a difficulty that is usually dealt with by the employer putting up the money. That is the way in which the initial entrants have been dealt with under this Bill. The Government, like the employer, have put


up the money. In this connection I would like to remind the House that not only the Government, but Members of the House have a double duty. We have to consider the beneficiaries, those whom we desire the scheme to benefit; we have also to consider the general taxpayer, and we as Members cannot shelve that responsibility by saying it is the responsibility of the Government. Nobody can suggest that the position of the taxpayer in this matter should not be considered. To my mind that supplies the answer to some of the questions of a detailed character such as: Why not income limits higher? And why not rates of contribution lower? Regard must be had, first, to the stability of the fund, and, secondly, to our duty to the general taxpayers.
I do not know whether I am being too bold, but I shall venture to give my opinion in regard to the difference in the Bill in regard to income limits between men and women. The apparent inequality struck me at once, and I began to ponder over it, and this was the conclusion I had come to before I had heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say: In the first place, I did not in any way associate the Bill with the question of equal pay for men and women, and I feel that those who bring that forward are raising an issue with which this Bill was never intended to deal and does not in fact deal. The apparent inequality is rather more numerical than real. The Bill puts the income limit in the case of men at £400 a year. I visualised the type of man who would be covered by that provision, and thought of him as being in the main a married man with a family, and I thought of the many cases where this scheme will prove to be of real benefit to a man in such circumstances. Then I turned my mind to the other side of the picture and asked why the income limit had been fixed at £250 in the case of women, and came to the conclusion that the distinction had been drawn solely on account of the added responsibilities of the men who will be covered by the scheme. It is a differentiation not of worth but of responsibilities. After all, a woman with an income of £400 a year would he in a much better position to make provision independently for her old age, and I was particularly impressed by the statement of the Minister that an annuity which

would secure the particular benefit given by this Bill could be secured from independent insurance offices at the rate of, I think, 1s. 6d. a week at the age of 25.

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Member tell us what the contribution would have to be if the woman, instead of being aged 25, was aged 40? Any insurance office would charge the woman 5s. per week for a benefit which she would get under the Bill for 6d.

Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that information, but it does not affect my main argument. I rest my case upon this point, and am prepared to stand by it, that in the provision that is made in this Bill consideration has been had specially to the responsibilities of a man, and I think it is a mistake that attempts should be made to bring into this Measure a question which has no relation to it. This legislation is being introduced to give help to the most needy and I would suggest to my hon. Lady Friends who have concentrated on one particular matter that they will find there are many classes of cases which have prior claims on their consideration.
I would turn next to the question of the costs which will fall upon the Exchequer. As Members of this House we have some responsibility for the burden that is imposed upon the Exchequer, especially as some of the charges which will have to be borne will not have to be met out of revenue raised by this Parliament; the task of making provision for them will have to be undertaken by succeeding Parliaments. The charges for which the Treasury are responsible fall largely under two heads. The main charge is in respect of the initial entrants. Those who have read the Government actuary's report will observe that it has not been possible to state precisely the exact financial obligations, but it is perfectly clear that the greater the number of people who come under the scheme the greater will be the amount which the Treasury will have to pay. I do not think that the Treasury have approached this subject in any parsimonious or niggling spirit; the impression I have gained is that they have made a real effort to deal generously with a social problem and to extend the system of insurance, which those in all parts of the House agree should be extended.
The Treasury commitments are really substantial. Two million men and women are eligible to come under the scheme. On the basis of 250,000 married men and 100,000 married women the cost to the Treasury will be £23,000,000, or a 30 years annunity of £1,200,000. If we double the figures and assume that there will be 500,000 married men and 200,000 married women the charge to the Treasury will be £43,000,000. I have not very much sympathy with those who feel they are in a position to regard £43,000,000 as a niggling and parsimonious sum, for I look upon it as a substantial contribution to a very worthy cause. There is the further contribution, for which the Treasury has made itself responsible, in regard to pensions over 70. Here again the estimates have been largely framed on guess work, but so far as any estimate is possible it seems to me that the Treasury responsibility might easily vary from £2,000,000 to £4,000,000 a year. I suggest that we, as custodians of the financial resources of the country, must admit that those are generous contributions.
Perhaps the main impression which a consideration of this Bill has left upon my mind is that it is a Measure of wide scope and generosity. As to its scope I have been struck by the variety of people who will be covered by it, the large numbers of small independent self-supporting people, ministers of religion, shopkeepers, farmers, clerks, dressmakers and music teachers. Some may say they do not like these stubborn independent people, but in our heart of hearts we must surely admire them profoundly, because we recognise that they are examples of that sturdy independent spirit which we all regard as a thoroughly British characteristic. They are types of the people who, as the Minister has said, often find themselves unable to provide for themselves the old age pensions which this Bill is designed to give them. Among the people with salaries of from £250 to £400 a year are most worthy and desirable citizens, many of whom have suffered great hardships; but I think the greatest value of this scheme is not represented in terms of pounds, shillings and pence but in the relief from the anxiety which arises in the minds of those who wonder what is to happen to them in their declining years—a relief which cannot be assessed in terms of money.
In addition to the financial features of the Bill as instanced in the treatment of initial entrants and the payment of pensions over 70, there are two other important matters which struck me as being very valuable. The first is that no arbitrary line is laid down, except in the case of initial entrants, where it was inevitable. Thereafter we have the very important concession that people can enter this scheme at any date which is convenient to them, and I am very glad that it will not be the case under this Bill, as has happened under other Bills, that people will lose the opportunity of joining the scheme because they have passed the period during which they were eligible. The second concession is the provision for treatment of arrears arising from sickness or misfortune.
I should like to express my personal appreciation of the action of the Government in bringing forward this legislation. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House welcome the fact that the improved state of our national affairs has made this Bill possible, and it is rather a striking coincidence that in the last three days of this week there have been introduced Measures dealing with our domestic and internal affairs which I confidently believe will prove to be of great value to our people. In commending this Measure, which I do with all sincerity, I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Department, and I would also particularly congratulate the Minister upon the lucid manner in which he explained the Bill to us this afternoon.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I will not say that I was enamoured of the statement made by the Minister, because it was a statement such as I expected he would make. My recollection goes back to the time about 25 years ago when I heard the right hon. Gentleman dealing with the question of National Health Insurance. I see in this Measure to-day a new revelation affecting the amenities and the social life of the nation. A new responsibility is being taken on by the Government, and the end of it may be revolutionary. I can see the passing away of the old system of insurance and State insurance taking its place. I have been an official of a society ever since the inception of the Act, but I say, speaking from the point of view of the nation, that it will be best for all concerned when that day comes,


although my livelihood as a general secretary is wrapped up in it. After 25 years' work and experience of the National Health Insurance Acts I can say, quite apart from the vested interest of the societies or of the insured persons, that the time has come when we ought to take account of such a scheme as this, which is of great national importance.
The old age pension is one of the main factors in the life of insured individuals. Most people are obsessed by the fear of old age. We have heard to-day of the loneliness of old age, but a more terrible thing is the penniless old age. It is a most dreadful thing to contend with. The spirit of unrest which is abroad to-day, whether among employed or employers, is aroused by the fact that there is no security. No one is sure that when old age comes that there will be any security, in the present conditions of competition, or that they will be able to sit by their own fireside in peace and comfort instead of having to pass their days in an institution. That is what concerns us. Anything which tends to the uplifting of our people or to bring a higher standard, though it may be small, is welcome. This is only a commencement. It is in its initial stage, and any criticism should be of a constructive kind. It is not only a question of the National Government, because this party may have to follow in their footsteps.
In dealing with a Measure of such importance it is essential that we should realise what is actually happening. The question of the equality of the sexes is of very small importance. To me, that is a matter of minor importance in contrast with the magnitude of the Bill which is before us. In my humble opinion, no such thing is possible as equality of the sexes. Equality means equality in all the burdens of life. It cannot be done, especially by one particular portion. The male portion in the battle of life bears the brunt. There are one or two places in the Bill where the change which is forecast may give rise to difficulties of administration, and it is to those difficulties that I want to call the attention of the House. I hope they will not be stressed in the propaganda associated with the new phase. If we get into our mind what the Bill means there can be no wrong thinking. The Bill deals with a class of person that never before came

within the ambit of this insurance. A special voluntary contributor is therefore being set up under the Act. That being so, it gives a flat rate entrance to the male of 1s. 3d., and to the female a flat rate entrance of 6d. for the first year. The rate will fluctuate with the age of entrance. No scheme can be beneficial or elastic unless there is the wherewithal to carry it on, and it has to be found by the income. That is true, whether in my home, the trade union, or the nation. The money has to be found, and if it is not in the till the thing cannot be done. The sooner we understand that, the better for all concerned.
We are told that this is a wonderful scheme, and that it is to cost a little over £1,000,000 per annum. Then, if I may bring in an irrelevancy, we are told that we are to spend £1,500,000,000 on armaments. With all due respect to the Minister I want to contrast those two expenditures. It is considered essential for the protection of the nation that we should spend £1,500,000,000 during the next five years, or £300,000,000 per year upon armaments, yet in 1937, in the British House of Commons, all parties welcome the wonderful Bill to make provision for old age and to give pensions to a particular class. Members of that class have helped to keep many people who have received benefits which they themselves can never obtain. They have never had the opportunity to make provision for themselves, and they could not go into any scheme. To-day their opportunity is dawning and they are coming into their own.
It has been said to-day that we are filling in the gap. I trust that the Minister will not get any bigger or have a swelled feeling because of any bouquet which I may give him in the language which I use. I am delighted to find that there are Ministers on the Front Bench who can produce a scheme of this kind to benefit so many homes in the land. I recognise that with this sum of money going regularly and surely into their homes, many people will have great benefit. The money was never more needed than it is in those walks of life where the income is small although the wants are also very small. The few extra shillings coming in will make a great difference. While I applaud the initial stage of the Bill, I would say that greater things could


be done. I do not want any hon. Member to think that because we are giving a widow's mite we are doing all that we should. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. It is a condemnation of all parties that while we must have armaments, and while manufacturers and others are making fortunes, the workers of the nation are not able to obtain the necessaries of life in their old age. That is a terrible indictment.
I do not want to speak of class war or to raise that question in any way, but, whether it be the case of my father or anybody else, if, in his old age, sufficient means are not going into his home, and if, when a person who has given his best to the nation reaches old age, no provision is made for him to have comfort at his own fireside, something is radically wrong in the state of society. It is for that reason that I recognise this Bill as a step in the right direction. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady never had her own fireside.

Viscountess Astor: But I am not old.

Mr. Logan: There are one or two important items in the Bill of which the Minister should take note. I do not want to go into questions of finance. I have read the Bill, and I want to point out what difficulties ought to be considered. In extension of the scope of voluntary insurance for widows, orphans and aged people, approved societies will not be affected, but the transitional regulations are likely to affect the existing and subsequent voluntary membership of approved societies. The right hon. Gentleman will follow my meaning. I refer to the special class of voluntary contributor which is the "C" class to-day. From conversations I have had I believe that a regulation will be issued notifying all members of approved societies who are voluntary contributors that they have the power of transferring to this State scheme. I want the Minister to pay particular attention to the difficulty which I see here. Whether we like it or not, vested interests have been created in approved societies. The State, the employers, and the employed are working in a tripartite arrangement. Until the State is prepared to take over the full responsibility of that organisation, the organisation must be kept going. Those bodies must carry certain responsibilities, but if you filch from one part of the scheme that particular portion which legiti-

mately belongs to the present organisation, the question arises whether compensation should be paid or whether you should not take it over holus-bolus.
Anyone with a knowledge of National Health Insurance will admit that, if you are going to allow under this Bill a special class of voluntary contributors, the very moment that you bring in another class, which has already been created years ago, there is a differentiation which you have to reconcile. I want to give a warning, if possible, to the nation, and to all voluntary contributors under the National Health Insurance scheme, to be very careful before they accept the scheme which is now before the House. It is not that I do not think that the special class for whom at present there is no scheme whatever should not get the full benefit of the present Measure, but I want to give a warning to those who are in National Health Insurance and who are voluntary contributors under the Act.
You have coming under this scheme men whose incomes are under £400 a year, and women whose incomes are under £250. A voluntary contributor under the existing National Health Insurance scheme will be able to apply to become a voluntary contributor under this Bill. I understand that he will be asked, does he wish to transfer to the widows', orphans' and old age pensions scheme? If such a proposition is placed before him, he will be confronted with this position: He is to be asked to take up the widows', orphans' and old age pensions contributory scheme, or he is allowed to remain in his National Health Insurance. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that a card would be issued which would deal only with the widows', orphans' and old age pensions contributory scheme. Those persons who are in the voluntary contributor class to-day will be able to transfer and go out, if they will, from the National Health Insurance benefits and take up the widows', orphans' and old age contributory pension scheme. That may bolster up the scheme, bringing what I would term the illegitimate into the legitimate channel, because this Bill is a Bill to deal with a special class who are not now covered by insurance, and those who come in from, so to speak, the "regular army" are coming in to bolster up a scheme which they have really no right to enter.
I contend that we have to be honest in this House. If the Minister is going to issue a notice to all the approved societies, intimating to every Class C member who is a voluntary contributor that he has the option under certain conditions of going out to get these benefits only in the new special class that is being set up, he must remember that additional benefits are being given by the approved societies, and that all insured men who are Class C voluntary contributors with incomes under £250 per annum receive medical benefit, but that, if a member transfers into this new class, he loses his right of National Health insurance as a voluntary contributor. He goes out, he is not entitled to get his medical benefit any more, he will not be able to get additional benefits, and those benefits that he has built up from 1912 until now will be gone for ever. I submit that, while propaganda is going on in regard to bringing in the approved society member, you ought to give to the member the same opportunity as the lapsed member of a society. He is not going to get very much benefit under either scheme, but under the approved society a lapsed member who was a voluntary contributor would be allowed the right of reverting and qualifying for Health Insurance benefits and old age pension within an approved society. I think there has been a suggestion that health benefits, general benefits, and all these other benefits, would be of great service and would be a saving to the State. There is no saving in regard to that class of person unless they get into an approved society or one of the special bodies that are operating. The Deposit Contributors' Act would be of no use to them, and I feel that, if the Minister would take that into consideration, it would be beneficial.
There is one Clause that is very acceptable, and if ever a provision was made to give an opportunity to people to qualify and receive benefit, to give them an easement, it is to be found in this Bill. Anyone with a knowledge of the provisions of the National Health Insurance Acts that deal with Class C voluntary contributors knows that voluntary contributors must pay 45 contributions per year under the existing scheme. Under the new scheme a man or woman can go down to 26 contributions per annum. Of course, there will be a reduction, but they will not be out of benefit, and that benefit can carry

on right through their life. I think I have placed before the Minister some practical suggestions for improvements, and I shall make some further observations if I have the opportunity on another occasion. I trust that this Bill may bear good fruit, because I see in it a wonderful asset for the nation.

6.54 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I am sure we are all glad that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) has paid the tribute that he has to this Bill, and I think that Members in all quarters of the House are extraordinarily thankful that so fine a Measure has come before us and are glad to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he presented it, and I feel that it is a Bill which gave evident pleasure to himself. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that it represented State intervention. Certainly the State contributions are extremely generous, and we ought to be glad that under the National Government the State can afford to intervene in so generous a manner. How very different would the position have been had the Labour Government been in office. We should then have had no State intervention for these black-coated workers, for the State would be unable to afford help. The hon. Member for Westhoughton also said that the Bill was but a very paltry Measure, and that he belonged to societies which already gave far greater benefits than were to be had under this Bill. What a tribute to the capitalist system—

Mr. Rhys Davies: I was speaking of the co-operative movement, and that is not a capitalist concern.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member did not mention the co-operative movement but even had he done so, I think he will be the last to deny that they have traded, and traded successfully, under a capitalist system, and that only under a capitalist system would it have been possible to provide such benefits as are being given, as anyone can very clearly discover by a study of countries which are not capitalist.
I believe that the class whom we are bringing into insurance now is a class that has very real need of it. The Minister very rightly said that we are providing now for a class who, in the past,


have provided for others when they themselves had as great a need. If we are doing that, I think it is the more regrettable that there is in this magnificent Bill an extraordinary injustice to women. The Minister very rightly pointed out that the Bill gives great benefits to women—married women and widows. No one would deny that, but the merits of a Bill do not rest upon whether it gives greater benefits to a larger number of men or whether it gives greater benefits to a larger number of women. The merits of a Bill must depend upon whether it provides for those who are in need and whether it is just. The Minister has certainly not made out a case for justice.
He said that we must consider, when we are regarding these contributions, the dependants. We hear a great deal of men being a logical sex, but on Monday we are coming to this House to consider Ministers' salaries. May I ask whether we are going to consider them on a basis of dependants? Are we going, when we consider those Ministers' salaries, to decide upon one salary for a married Minister with children, and another salary for an unmarried Minister? I am aware that most of our Ministers have reached the age, when owing to the probably rather fortunate vanity of men, few of them have escaped the meshes of matrimony. Nevertheless I do not think we shall hear of the argument of dependants on Monday. What we are doing in one case let us do in another. Are we going in future to provide salaries and to provide benefits simply on the basis of family obligations and dependants? If so, let us do what the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has urged for many years—let us give family allowances. Let us either do that or pay people according to the merits of what their work is worth, and not on their dependants. Certainly do not let us begin introducing this policy by imposing indefensible conditions and restrictions on women. It is going to be extremely unfair to a class of women who can least afford to be so treated.
No one will deny that old age is very much harder for the woman who has had to support herself, and often a large number of relatives as well, although the Minister, apparently, does not accept that. A woman who has had all her life

to earn her own living has usually had to do so at a lower salary than a man in the same position would have earned. She has therefore not been able to save as much money as he probably could have saved. Old age for a woman, we realise, lasts longer than for a man, because she has four years longer expectation of life, and also old age for a woman, unfortunately, begins at an earlier age. No one will deny that it is very much more difficult for a middle-aged woman to retain employment than it is for a middle-aged man.
If this new policy were based on the fact that women earn lower salaries than men you could have no justification for it, for some of the women who are going to be affected by this are not the women who earn lower salaries than men. We are going to bring in small shopkeepers, dressmakers and music teachers. The small shopkeeper and the lodging-house keeper may be earning exactly the same amount of money as a man in a like profession. She is probably the only woman who has the opportunity of earning exactly equal wages with a man. A man is allowed to come into this scheme when he is earning less than £400, but he is, unfortunately, more likely than a woman to rise to a very much higher figure than £400 a year. He will probably eventually earn £600, £800 or £1,000 a year and be in much less need of this scheme than a woman who only in very exceptional circumstances is going to be in a position to earn more than £400 a year. I think it is a tragedy that when the Government is bringing in this really magnificent Bill, and when it has done so well that the finances of the country enable us to have such a Bill, that it should be marred by a hideous injustice and should be introducing a new principle that voluntary insurance is to be regulated by the amount of money earned with a differentiation between men and women. We have had injustice between men and women in the past, but it has up to now been in regard to benefits and contributions. We have never before had this wholly new principle brought in that even the salary they earn is to be used to debar women from benefit.
I believe there is another great danger. You will find a certain number of people in the future who will say to a woman "Of course we would like to raise your


salary, but it would not be to your advantage to do it; it would put you out of the scheme of insurance." That is a very real danger. It is an argument that is almost certain to be used to keep the wages of women, already much too low, down. I beg of the Minister to make this Bill, which is so good already, perfect by removing the inequality to women.

7.5 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has put the case against one point in the Bill very clearly. Like the hon. Lady, I pay tribute to the Bill as on the whole a very useful and valuable long-delayed Measure. I was rather surprised when I first read in the King's Speech that the Government were going to single out this particular extension of the pension scheme for priority, because I am not certain that it is the greatest need. It is a great need, but we hope that this Bill will be followed by a Measure which will extend to the black-coated worker the general benefits of health insurance and unemployment insurance. The feature I most warmly welcome in the Bill is that it covers that extraordinarily neglected and amazingly patient person, the worker on his or her own account. That worker has always been left out, and has continued to pay taxation for insurance benefits which he or she has no hope of enjoying. I am, indeed, glad that this Bill recognises the needs of the workers on their own account.
As a University Member, I am particularly bound to welcome the Bill, because it will affect a considerable number of those I represent, professional men and women of moderate income, dependent, most of them, entirely on earned salaries and with no security that they will be able to make proper provision out of those salaries for their old age and dependants. So far I am wholly glad the Bill has been introduced. There is just one thing in which I should have liked to have seen the Ministry bolder. I wish that in considering the class of person for whom this Bill is intended they could have experimented on some system of higher or graded rates of benefit with correspondingly higher or graded rates of contribution, because, standards of life being relative, the provision made in this Bill is going to be only a small alleviation of the

hard case of a man Or woman in the professional or middle classes who falls on evil times. A widow's pension of 10s., an orphan's pension of the amount stated and an old age pension of 10s. is a very low level, and I believe that many of the men and women concerned would gladly have contributed a higher rate of contribution in order to secure a higher rate of benefit. I am not suggesting that for that purpose the State contribution should be increased. But I believe that the Measure would have been more useful if there had been higher rates of contribution and benefit so as to meet the standards of the people for whom the Bill is intended, without increasing the State burden. It has always seemed to me a curious thing about the insurance system of this country how we go on assuming that a flat rate of contributions and benefits is the natural thing and inevitable, when nearly every country in the world which is experimenting on the social insurance system has put aside the flat rate system in favour of graded contributions and benefits. This would have been a useful time to make a small experiment in that direction.
When the discrimination in the income limit between men and women was made plain by the publication of the Bill just before Easter, it came as a thunderclap, I think, to most of us who were anticipating this Measure. There was no explanation of it either in the Bill or the Actuary's Report, and so it was not until we heard the Minister's speech that we could see exactly on what that differentiation limit —quite a new feature in social insurance —was based. I was not taken by surprise by the Minister's explanation, such as it is. There could be no other explanation. Thinking it over, there was only one thing on which he could base it—the greater average family responsibilities of men as compared with women. Of all the Members of this House there is, perhaps, no one who is less likely than myself to under-estimate the value of that argument, such as it is. I should be sorry to calculate the mass of work and the oceans of ink and paper I have expended in trying to bring home to a neglectful public this very point of the burden of family responsibilities and the need that more should be done by the public to help men in bearing these family responsibilities. Of course, it is true that, taken on the average, a man has a greater


claim on his income than a woman, but just because I have given so much thought to that problem, perhaps I see more clearly than some people just why this particular instance of endeavouring to meet that problem is wholly irrelevant to it, and is based on a complete confusion of thought.
If this Bill had been a compulsory Measure extending to the whole class of insured persons within certain income limits, there would have been a ease—I do not think that it would have been a good case—for imposing a different income limit for men and women. But I would like to point out that this is a Bill for voluntary contributors, and it is not meant to cover the whole number of people within the class of persons who are eligible as contributors. That that is so is shown quite clearly in the Actuary's Report and the Minister's own statement. The Actuary, while admitting that no one could be certain what proportion of eligible contributors would contribute, estimates on the basis that it will probably be a proportion of one-fourth or one-fifth. He estimates the same for women. Both the Actuary and the Minister specially referred to the fact that it might be supposed that men would hardly ever contribute until they married, and were beginning to feel the need for making provision through this Measure. That all shows that the whole idea of the Bill is to provide not for everybody within a given class, but for those in that class who have special need for the protection of the Measure. Is anybody going to deny that while men and women have a different average of family responsibility there are plenty of women who have much heavier family responsibilities than have plenty of men, and who have greater claims on their income?
Under this Bill there will be thousands of women who are widows of uninsured men with dependent children to provide for, married women with husbands who have deserted them, or who are unable to work, with children to provide for, women with invalid husbands to provide for, spinsters who, with family claims on their salaries, are asked to keep an aged father or mother and have the greater part of the burden placed on them because brothers they may have have families of their own. The Minister made a special appeal to the bachelor to join, and join early, because though he was not very

likely to remain a bachelor, he would need the advantages of the Bill when he married, and had better join while it was cheap. He did not allude to the fact that the proportion of women who will never marry is very much larger, and that they very often have a much greater difficulty than married men in making provision for their old age.
The Bill takes account only of the salary at the time of entry into the scheme. A woman may enter if her income is not more than £250 and the man if his income is not more than £400. The hon. Lady pointed out that there is a far greater chance that later on the man's salary will rise to a very much higher amount, and you will have numerous cases where he is eventually earning a salary out of which he can make provision for his own old age and his widow and dependants without any aid from the State, and he is doing it partly at the expense of a woman with an income, perhaps, a fifth of his, who perhaps has more to do out of it. Another point that should not be forgotten is that the woman's expectation of life is more than a man's. She usually finds it much harder to retain her occupation until an advanced age, and in many occupations a woman over middle age finds it very hard to get a job. Then, while it is true that the burden of family responsibility on a man is heavy while his children are dependent, when they grow up they become an asset instead of a liability and in many cases, if he has not saved enough, he and his wife are able to take refuge in the house of a son or daughter and live at their expense, whereas a spinster has to live alone and look forward to a long, lonely, penurious old age. Therefore, I regret that in a Bill of this sort, which is intended to meet hard cases, there should have been this differentiation between men and women, which is certain to bear hardly on thousands of women who will find themselves excluded.
The Minister, I think, misunderstood one of the arguments addressed to him by some of the women's societies which have circularised him. They put the point, which is of course undeniable, that every woman who actually contributes under the Bill will be a far smaller charge on the Exchequer than a man. According to the Actuary's calculation, the charge on the Exchequer works out at £40 per woman


contributor and £70 per man contributor. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that women were complaining of that and had failed to realise that, though the man got more out of the Bill, he also contributed at a higher rate. Of course the women knew that, and knew that the reason was that the man was contributing for widows' and orphans' pensions and for wives' pensions as well as for the more limited benefits for which women contribute. They did not want to complain about that, but they were making the point that the woman is a cheaper proposition for the Government under the Bill. It is all the meaner of the Government to try to cut down the cost of women even more by making this differential income limit. I hope that on reconsideration they will think better of it. The resentment that this arouses among women will be rather a surprise to them as time goes on. Thousands of women who will not themselves be eligible as contributors will feel the essential injustice of it. Everywhere where it is to the convenience and the profit of the State, or of the fund, or of the male contributor, to treat men and women on the same footing, it is done, but whenever there is a reason for picking out women, finding that they need less, or can contribute less, or that for some reason they should be treated differently, they are always treated differently.
Here is an instance of it. Women in many ways already are contributing a larger proportion of their incomes just because they have smaller families to keep. Take the case, for example, of a man and a woman with salaries, perhaps, of £300. The man is going to be eligible as a contributor under the Bill. He does not pay any Income Tax because the family rebates cut away all the Income Tax. The woman, if she has no children, pays a substantial Income Tax and, of course, pays equally with the man through indirect taxation on tea, cigarettes and the rest of it. She is debarred from coming under this Measure and, as time goes on, she may feel that her need of its benefits is far greater than that of scores of her male competitors who are earning more and getting more assistance from their children in their old age, and whose needs in every way are less than hers. In conversation with the Minister I said that if the Government are anxious to go on losing university seats, they have

taken a means admirably adapted to that end. In order to save a very small sum to the Exchequer, they are making a differentiation which will offend all the nurses, midwives, teachers, small shopkeepers, lodging-house keepers, dressmakers, hairdressers and all the trades that the Minister enumerated. They are all cut out because their earnings are rather less than a man's, who has, perhaps, less to do out of his earnings, and who may end up by being a very much richer person. They will bitterly resent it. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and will introduce some change into the Bill which will give equal treatment to men and women.

7.25 p.m.

Sir Richard Meller: The hon. Lady regretted that graded contributions and benefits were not introduced into the schemes of social insurance. Such a method would introduce great difficulties and would probably be impossible in a compulsory scheme. When a scheme is introduced, the Minister has to satisfy Parliament what is likely to be the probable contribution of the State and, if we were to have graded benefits and contributions according to the whim and fancy of the person who claimed to come into the insurance scheme, the Government could not come forward and say what the liabilities were likely to be. Moreover, you have in a compulsory scheme first of all to persuade people that the scheme is necessary, and then get them to agree that the contribution required is one within the realms of possibility for that class of person. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) regretted that the present scheme was not an extension of the existing insurance scheme. I do not quarrel with that, but we are dealing at present with the claims of a very deserving section of the community who feel that for a long time they have been left out of the benefits of the National Health Insurance scheme. It is true that in 1911 there was not that alacrity to join in the health insurance scheme, and the development for inclusion in insurance has come about very largely since the introduction of the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. Past Debates have called forth a tremendous amount of sympathy for those persons whose benefits under the health insurance scheme were likely to be jeopardised, particularly benefits with


regard to old age and widows' and orphans' pensions.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) complained that this was not an insurance scheme, and he quoted from a report of a Select Committee in 1825 dealing with Friendly Societies, an interpretation of insurance, "the combining or uniting with others to meet a contingency." If that is a proper interpretation of insurance—I do not disagree with it—is not this a combining or uniting together of persons to bear one another's burdens? It is not only the persons within the limits of £250 and £400 a year. It is the State, and all that is comprised within the State, coming forward to give such benefits, which could not be obtained in any other way. In the past voluntary effort has done a great deal towards providing against these contingencies, but voluntary effort, unfortunately, was never able to provide benefits on such a wide scale as we are getting under the national scheme. It is, indeed, a remarkable offer that is being made, and I am sure it is going to be taken up very gladly and very widely.
I should like to refer to one class that many of us have come upon since the War, who have felt that provision should be made for their old age but circumstances have changed, trades have gone, and they find themselves in a position very much inferior to that which they expected and are unable to provide a lump sum to purchase an annuity. I should like to point out that the contribution of 1s. 3d. for an initial entrant, as against the cost of benefit in the case of a man of 55 being 15s., that is giving 1s. for 1d.—a great difference between the Insurance Act of 1911 which gave 9d. for 4d. I see the daughter of the right hon. Gentleman the author of the Insurance Act of 1911 sitting in front of me, and I would like to coin another slogan, and say that this is "A bob for a copper." The benefit of 15s. for a flat contribution of 1s. 3d. is a tremendous benefit.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.)

As amended, considered.

7.30 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: I wish to raise a point relating to Part III of this Bill, which enables the London Midland and Scottish Railway to establish a new Schedule of port and harbour dues at Holyhead, or gives the company power which they do not possess at the moment to charge ordinary harbour dues for shipping using the port facilities for which the company holds the lease. It is true that there is a Schedule to the Bill which lays down a scale of charges, but there is also a provision which enables a revision of rates, either downwards or upwards, to take place, and it is also true that the revision is subject to the approval of the Minister. If arbitrary powers of this kind are to be given to a monopoly—and as far as Holyhead is concerned the London Midland and Scottish Railway is a monopoly—it should be subject to very stringent safeguards. The Bill recognises the necessity for safeguards of some kind, because it provides that representations may be made to the Minister when the question of revision comes up
by any chamber of commerce or shipping or any representative body of traders or any dock or harbour authority or any person who in the opinion of the Minister is a proper person for the purpose.
That is a sort of formula or model clause, and it would seem to be a very comprehensive list, but, as far as Holyhead is concerned, it is a dead letter. There is no chamber of commerce or shipping, nor is there a representative body of traders, and the dock or harbour authority is the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company itself, and it is very much like asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) to make representations to the Prime Minister. Therefore, I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that he will consider the urban district council as one of the persons entitled to make any representations, that is, as the proper person for the purpose, otherwise it is clear that local interests will have no opportunity of being heard in this matter, which is really a vital one for the town.
I am sure that the Minister will be very sympathetic with the anxiety that is felt. The town is entirely dependent upon the cross-Channel traffic, and that trade has been in a state of depression for some years owing to the difficult relations between the Irish Free State and this country. I would add that 48 per cent. of the men insured in that town are out of work. It is a very high percentage indeed. It is true that as long as the lease of the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the mail contract last, it will make no difference to the regular traffic from Holyhead, because, obviously, the railway company is not going to charge increased dues to itself, and if it were to do so it would merely come out of one pocket and be placed in the other, and one cannot imagine the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company doing anything to increase its own charges by its own act. As the mail contract expires, I think in 1940, one has to contemplate the contingency that, if the mail contract were not renewed, then the company, as the owner of the harbour by virtue of the powers conferred by this Bill, would be able to charge these rates, and possibly revised or increased rates, on the shipping of any other company that might gain the contract, or on any general shipping which might develop at Holyhead to replace the Irish mail shipping there. It is in these circumstances, and in the event of the revision of rates being prejudicial to the interests of this town, already so hard hit, that I ask the Minister to give the assurance required.

7.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): The hon. Lady kindly gave me notice that she was going to raise this point, and I understand that she desires an assurance that, in the event of the Holyhead Urban District Council desiring to apply for a revision of the rates applicable to Holyhead Harbour under the provisions of this Bill, it would be open to them to do so. As the hon. Lady says, Clause 34 provides that application for such revision may be made to the Minister, among other people, by any person who, in the opinion of the Minister, is a proper person for the purpose. The hon. Lady wants an assurance from us that the urban district council would

be considered to be such a proper person. I can give her this definite assurance. I am advised that it would be in order for the urban district council to apply to the Minister under the Clause for a revision of the harbour charges. As regards what action the Minister would take upon such an application, I cannot, of course, commit a future Minister in the exercise of a discretionary power, but I think I can say that it is the evident intention of this Clause to provide a means of enabling local interests concerned to be heard on questions of charges at the harbour, and in the event of the urban district council applying to the Minister under the Clause, the absence of any other appropriate local body to which the hon. Lady referred would be an important consideration to the Minister in exercising his discretion under the Clause. I am sure that a Minister would endeavour to carry out that intention of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that assurance.

Mr. Maxton: Why not put it in the Clause?

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

7.39 p.m.

Sir R. Meller: I was about to point out to the House the great advantages which will accrue under the Bill, and to show what would be the cost to a man of 65 years of age who desired to place himself in the position in which he would be placed if he were an insured person under this scheme. This offer is equivalent to a joint annuity on the lives of two persons for £1 per week at 65 with a payment of 10s. a week to the survivor. I am informed that to purchase an annuity of this kind would cost, at the age of 65 of both persons, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500. That is a pretty large sum, to provide at the present day, on a salary of £250 to £400 a year; it means a great thrift to a married man with a family and and also there is a temptation during the period of saving to use some of the


savings to meet an emergency. There is not this temptation or indeed opportunity when provision is being made by instalments paid into a fund to secure the provision. If the individual is able to provide a lump sum, what a tremendous relief and security it must be to know that there is in addition an annuity coming at the age of 65. But that is not all. The annuity to which I refer would cost approximately £500, but this scheme provides also for a pension for the widow, if she is left a widow before 65, and also payments in respect of orphans during their younger years.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that there has never been such an offer made by any Government in this country or any other country as is being made in regard to this particular section. It may be said that it is not a concession which extends beyond the first year, and that when we come to persons after the initial entrance has gone by they can only enter at a rate which is excessive. But what great financial advantages there are even for the higher contributions for those persons who come in later. The scheme does not exclude the right of persons who have qualified under the Health Insurance scheme of becoming voluntary contributors in the ordinary course of insurance. The hon. Lady referred to the great disadvantage in which women were placed by the limitation of £250. The hardship is not as great as she endeavoured to make out or as the hon. Lady made out who spoke before her. Many of these persons will be insured persons long before they pass over the £250 to £400 limit. They will be getting smaller salaries which will entitle them to be insured persons. If it so happens that they are not persons entitled to be insured under the Health Insurance scheme, they will with income limits come into the scheme under the graded contributions according to age.
The invitation issued by the Minister to bachelors to consider the possibility of coming into a voluntary scheme at an early age applies equally to spinsters. Therefore the Minister can be said to have met the objections very well indeed.
It is well that we should remind ourselves of what the State has done by way of pensions. Some hon. Members have been talking to-day in rather depreciative tones of the efforts made by the Government in regard to this particular Measure,

but we have to go back not to this Measure only, but to the Pensions Act, 1908, and the Pensions and Widows' and Orphans' scheme of 1925. There we can see what commitments the State has taken upon itself. To-day we are paying over £62,000,000 a year by way of contributions from the State to pension schemes, whether it be the pension scheme of 1925 or the non-contributory pension scheme of 1908, in addition to the other burdens the State bears in connection with Health Insurance or Unemployment Insurance. The advantages enjoyed by workers of this country will be found in a very interesting article published in the "Times" in January, 1936, and they amount to something over £200,000,000 a year. We have to look to the commitments of the future. This Measure and the pension schemes generally are not only commitments to-day, but commitments for the future, and we have to be careful, as wise trustees, that we do not place upon those who come hereafter such heavy burdens that they will be unable to bear them.
It is well that the House and the country should consider all these schemes of social insurance piecemeal, if that be not an objectionable term, and extend them as we are able to bear the cost of them and the people are able to assimilate the benefits and shoulder the burden placed upon them by way of contributions. In that way we shall found our schemes of social insurance on a sound basis and with a security which no other country can excel. All through the difficult period of the War and the financial crisis of 1931 and the year or two that succeeded it, our schemes of insurance came through successfully, and to-day they are as strong as ever, and so, based upon the actuarial advice which has been given, we shall find that the present scheme will be secure.
There is one question which I should like to address to the Minister of Health. In Clause 25 of the actuary's report it is stated that:
With regard to health insurance, the rates of contribution fixed for contributors assume the continuity of insurance throughout life and the reserves held by approved societies are calculated accordingly.
In the last part of the paragraph the actuary says:
This matter will clearly have to be watched in the light of experience, and, in the


event of the resources of the fund proving to be insufficient, adjustments of a minor character may be required at a later date.
Can my right hon. Friend give the assurance that he will make such provision that as far as the approved societies are concerned, whatever effect this scheme may have upon them, their funds will not be adversely affected? The actuary having called attention to the matter, I assume that it is intended that some provision shall be made in that direction, and it would be a matter of satisfaction to those who are working for the approved societies to have that assurance. In conclusion, I join in the chorus of welcome which has been given unreservedly by the House to the introduction of the Bill, a chorus which will be taken up with the warmest approval by all those who desire to participate in the benefit intended to be secured by the Bill.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Latham: In company with others who have spoken I have no desire to deny to the Government the measure of credit to which, by general agreement, they are entitled, in making provision for conditions which have for so long been known to exist. But however generous-minded we may be in that respect, and appreciative as we are of the fact that there may be in this Measure the foundations for a national pensions scheme, for which there is a universal desire throughout the country, we cannot but direct our attention to the limited character of the provisions of the Bill, typifying, I fear, the characteristic lack of courage which in many directions the Government have shown in recent times. Those limitations can but evoke expressions of regret and disappointment.
In this respect I am entitled to speak of the disappointment that has been and will be aroused, because there have been many occasions for that disappointment among the people with whom for the greater part of my life I have been associated. The Bill has been advertised and eulogistically referred to as conferring extraordinary benefits and advantages upon the black-coated workers. The black-coated workers are examining the proposals, and the more closely they examine them the greater disposition there is to question the claims which have been put forward on its behalf, and to realise the extent to which it falls short of the

request which for years they have been making. I speak again with some experience, because as the President for 16 years of the National Federation of Professional Workers it has been my duty from time to time to present to the Minister and his colleagues requests from the black-coated workers of this country indicating a desire that provision should be made in the matter of insurance in directions where, unfortunately, there has been for many years, and it still continues, unfair discrimination against them.
For years past the organisations representing practically the whole, if not the whole, of the non-manual workers of this country have been literally begging and praying the Government to end the discrimination there is against them. They have asked and have been hoping that the Government would do that by lifting the salary limit from its present meagre figure to a figure more commensurate with the requirements of the present day, and that is to a level of £500. By doing that, and without the discriminations of the kind indicated in this Bill, they would have put the black-coated or non-manual workers in a position of no disadvantage compared with the manual workers, because they would then in the matter of pensions, old-age, widows' and orphans' pensions and health insurance, which is outside the provisions of the present Bill, and in the matter of unemployment insurance, which is a very difficult question for tens of thousands of non-manual workers have been put in a position comparable with that occupied by the manual workers.

Sir K. Wood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lathan: The Minister shakes his head and for what reason I am unable to imagine. He will know the limit that is now imposed in the matter 006Ff provision for the non-manual worker which is not imposed as far as the manual workers are concerned. If this Bill contained the beginning of proposals of that kind it would have given the satisfaction which has been suggested in many quarters but which is only a suggestion not based upon reality—the satisfaction of the manual workers with the proposals. The non-manual workers would in those circumstances have enjoyed a larger measure of satisfaction as a result of the Bill, and that satisfaction would have been increased had the Government given consideration to the proposal which has been


alluded to by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone), namely, a graded system. I recognise the wide experience of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. We all respect the opinions expressed by him, having regard to his wide experience in these matters but I have never been able to discover what real objection there can be to a scheme of insurance which would permit of a person contributing voluntarily or otherwise on the basis of pay for certain units of benefit. From time to time I have had the responsibility of urging the arrangement of a scheme of that character upon the Minister of Health and other Ministers concerned with insurance, but I have not yet received what has seemed to myself and my colleagues to be an adequate reply.
The present scheme will ultimately mean that the whole of the cost will fall upon some sections of voluntary contributors. Therefore the advantages that are regarded as so substantial and on high such a high value has been placed by the Minister and other speakers will not appear actually to exist so far as the non-manual workers are concerned. It is true that at the outset there are very attractive terms for those who are described as the initial entrants, but there is a limit to that generosity. If one may use a term which is more familiar perhaps to women than to men, the bargain basement of the Ministry will close down within the next 12 months or so, and the conditions, as far as the voluntary contributors are concerned, will be vastly different. The Bill does something else about which there may be real concern. Hitherto under the existing Acts, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) has pointed out, social insurance has been in two main sections, one National Health insurance, and the other section sub-divided into pensions for widows and orphans, and old age pensions. These sections are interlocked and there is one contribution and one card to cover the whole. The Bill proposes to break that interlocking, and in the explanatory memorandum it is stated that this breaking of the interlocking is to enable individuals to select, but only existing voluntary contributors, as I read the proposal, will be entitled to that right. I n future there seems to be no right of selection whatever for those who come in

under conditions that may be described as new entry.
As far as those who are in exceptional employment are concerned, while now permitted to take up voluntary insurance for all purposes they will be in a vastly different position, or at least their contemporaries in the future will be in a vastly different position, from the position they occupy to-day. On the strength of the arrangement which permitted them to come under all the headings of health insurance, pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions, approved societies have been set up with the authority of the Ministry, but inasmuch as this Bill now proposes to terminate the arrangement under which there can be such comprehensive insurance as the approved societies provided for—I gathered the Minister's answer to my interrogatory to be confirmation of that—these approved societies will be practically driven out of existence, because the purpose for which they were established will cease and the people for whom they sought to provide will no longer be permitted to exist under the provisions of the Bill. The position, therefore, seems to us to be one that entitles us to request the Minister to give further consideration to the limitations of the Bill in that respect.
It seems to me to be a great pity that a Bill originally or mainly designed to confer benefit should, in so far as one section is concerned, lay down conditions which will deprive certain classes of those who have shown a strong desire for this voluntary insurance, or their contemporaries in the future, of rights. Whilst we can all approve of the general purpose of the Bill and appreciate the benefits that it confers, it is a great pity, for the reasons that I have set forth, that it should be marred by limitations and penal Clauses of the character to which I have referred. I would ask the Minister, in company with those who have made the same plea earlier, to give consideration to these aspects of the case, with a view to adjustments later on.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Channon: This Bill seems to be meeting with the general approval of the House. Certainly it has been received by the country with a feeling of gratitude and relief. In my constituency it has aroused, not only satisfaction, but enthusiasm. The lives of many thousands of people there will be vitally affected by the scheme, and


on behalf of my constituents I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing it. We are told that roughly 2,000,000 persons will be affected by the scheme, but dependants will increase the numbers. Of this estimated number of 2,000,000 as many as 3 per cent. live in Southend. The people concerned throughout the country are, the House will agree, an important and splendid section of the community. In the past they have been called upon to make many sacrifices and they have responded ungrudgingly. In a sense these people fall between two stools. They have had the worst of both worlds. They have felt the pinch of poverty, but they have had also, to keep up appearances, to use a repugnant phrase. The people in insurable employment have spokesmen on all sides of this House to champion their causes. It is only the unfortunate black-coated worker who is without a spokesman. For too long his grievances have been forgotten by successive Governments. I am glad that at last this Government has taken up the black-coated workers' case.
The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. H. Kerr) referred to detached houses. When I walk through my constituency and see rows and rows of these houses, many of them built by building societies, I sometimes wonder what grim tragedies some of them hide. There is no doubt that many of the people in them have a difficult time. I have investigated many of these cases. There is a certain similarity running through all of them. A man in the late 50's, after a breakdown in health, returns to his office—he is usually a clerk—and finds that he is crowded out. He is dismissed after a short time. "Dismissed owing to reduction of staff" is the usual pretext given. The firms cannot be blamed, for they are not charitable institutions. Usually they behave kindly to these unfortunate black-coated workers. The man is given testimonials and three months' pay, sometimes a gratuity of as much as £100. But his career is, although he may not know it, at an end. At first he does not mind his enforced holiday. But after a time he looks for another position. Then begins a losing battle. Weary weeks are followed by anxious months, for who wants to give a job to a man nearly 60? Then comes real hardship for his family. Luxuries and necessities are rationed, the car, if

there is one, is sold in order that rates may be paid and school expenses which have not yet come to an end, kept up. Economies have to be made in order that payments on the house, already partly bought, may be completed. There may be no immediate want as yet, for the resources of these people usually last for a year or two. At the end of this time if the man has not found fresh employment he and his family have to resort to the charity of relations, who are none too well off themselves, or to public assistance.
It is people in this sort of predicament who will benefit largely by this Bill. Hon. Members will know many of these cases. Two were reported to me recently that were particularly pathetic. A man, a constituent of mine, earning rather more than the £400 limit allowed in this Bill, was out of employment two years before he could get another job, which was that of a sandwich man. He had to walk about with boards on his back in a town in which he had been respected as a citizen. The other case was that of a man who, for private reasons, perhaps through pride, did not tell his family when the blow of losing his job fell. For many months he took the usual early morning train to London as though he were going to work. He trusted that he might find a new position before his funds ran out. He kept his secret until unfortunately his body was found in Fen-church Street waiting-room.
These may be pathetic and extreme cases, but they are typical of some that will benefit by this Bill. Men in such unfortunate circumstances will at least be assured that their wives and children will be in a measure taken care of. They will know that when they reach the age of 65 they and their wives will have a joint income of £1 a week for the rest of their lives, or 10s. so long as one of them survives the other. Fifty-two pounds a year may not be much to a man who has been earning £400, but it is better than nothing. In many cases the old age pension will bring positive comfort, because almost all these people have resources of some sort. The extra income will add to their comfort—not only physical comfort, but in the vast majority of cases, mental comfort as well. Thousands of homes are haunted by a feeling of insecurity and fears of the


future. This Bill will go a long way to dissipate the fears which overshadow them. It will thus add to the sum of national happiness in no small measure.
The only real criticism I have heard against the Bill seems to be that it does not go far enough. That is always a rather sterile form of criticism, for it infers that once a reform has been put on the Statute Book and put into operation nothing further is ever done. The whole history of recent legislation tends to refute this false premise. Almost always a reform which has been found to be both sound and successful is, after a time, extended. I hope that will be the fate of the principle in this Bill. Social services before the War cost no more than 30s. a head. The cost has risen to 17s. 9d. That shows how these reforms grow. Another criticism which I have heard has come from outside the House, probably from what might be called less well-informed opinion. It has been said that the Bill does not strike at the root of the black-coated workers' problem, because it does not offer unemployment benefit. That is rather a large subject, and no doubt, if the Ministry of Labour were to introduce a Bill which would affect the black-coated worker in that connection, it would be welcome. Not more than half these people, however, are in the technical sense wage-earners. They are people who earn their own living in their own way and in their own time. They belong to the long list of small contractors, small shopkeepers, dressmakers, farmers, and others. It would be difficult to insure a man against unemployment when he is his own employer, just as it would not be right, although it might be popular, to insure hon. Members against the fortunes of a general election.
On the whole, the Exchequer has been extremely generous. Clause 6 lays it down that for every £3 paid by the contributor the Exchequer will find £4. For the first time the Government is selling insurance and putting itself almost into competition with the insurance companies. I have no hesitation in thinking that it will win in such competition. My right hon. Friend has given a series of bargains, one of which is that initial entrants, entering the scheme next year at 55, will for 1s. 3d. get an equivalent in actuarial value of 15s. a week. That is a very generous policy. Women who pay 6d. will get a policy worth 8s. There

is generous provision also in this Bill for those people who for one reason or another fall in arrears over their payments. Since the details of the Bill were published in the Press, I have had many inquiries from constituents and I should like to ask the Minister if the open door to which he referred could be opened a little wider so as to admit the border case of the man whose 56th birthday falls before the Bill comes into operation. Could the Minister see his way to include people of 56 or 57? I know that 260 contributions must be paid before a man is eligible for old age pensions, but could these people be allowed to pay the back contributions at compound interest from their 55th birthday? I hope he does not consider that to be an unreasonable suggestion. If that course were allowed, these people might very well transfer their savings into this form of insurance. I have been asked by several people if a man is entitled to a rebate in Income Tax in respect of his contributions as he would be if he insured with any ordinary company. If that principle were accepted and the man paid £4 a year, he would be entitled to a rebate of 10s.
I do not want to enter into the question of the limitations in the case of women, because something tells me that we shall have a spate of expert feminine oratory later on, but I do think there is something to be said for raising the limit in the case of women who are heads of families, such as widows with children. Actually, I am sorry that the Minister should have found it necessary to fix it at £400 in the case of men because there are cases of men with children and other obligations who with £500 a year are no better off, indeed are sometimes worse off, than the man with £400. I see no reason why, once a scheme of this sort becomes a paying proposition, there should be any limit at, all. I should have thought that people might be able to enjoy this amenity of our national life as they enjoy other amenities. That may be a dream of the future, but I think it could be done at no great cost to the Exchequer.
I have also been asked some questions in regard to unearned income. As I understand it, anyone up to £200 is entitled to £200 a year unearned income. A man with £300 is still entitled to £200. as unearned income; and that the same proportions will apply in the case of women. It is probably more important


that women should be allowed the full £125 unearned income because there are many women who are eking out their old age on a very small income. I am glad that these women are to be included in the scheme. Many of them have a private income of £100 or £125 a year, which they supplement now and then by sporadic employment. It is important that they should be included, and many of them have written to me on the matter. Several hon. Members have referred to the approved societies. I read this morning in the official organ of the approved societies, the "National Insurance Gazette," this statement:
The Pensions Bill is a great step forward. The rest of the civilised world is watching it with interest. We should like to congratulate those who are responsible for the scheme. It is very clever, indeed. It is far better than we thought possible.
I should have thought a statement like that would clear up any doubts there may be in regard to the attitude of approved societies towards the Bill. I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that of the many burdens which the taxpayer is asked to bear I think none will be more cheerfully shouldered by the community as a whole than the burdens which are imposed in this Bill.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I do not intend to go into the general questions which have been raised in relation to the provisions of the Bill. My only right to intervene in the discussion is the fact that the Minister has made special provision for allowing male teachers to be included in its scope, and it is my duty and privilege to thank the Minister for the courteous reception he gave to the representations which the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) and I made to him on more than one occasion. May I also be allowed to express our deep appreciation of the attitude of the head of the Department, Sir Walter Kinnear, a magnificent civil servant, who has received us with so much sympathy over a long period of time and listened to the many representations we have made? We are glad that the Minister, knowing the tortuous history as far as the teachers are concerned in this matter, has decided that at long last male teachers are to be included in the provisions of the Bill
While we may rejoice at the mechanics of the Bill and the general structure of

the Measure, there is also occasion for being rather sad. Here you have a class of people who may earn up to £400 seeking security on a low level of 10s. per week pension. I have been impressed by the communications I have received with the intense desire for security among a class of people who are supposed to be in secure jobs, who are so keenly desirous of getting the 10s. and 5s. a week provided by the Bill. Obviously there is something wrong with the modern state of society when such a feeling of insecurity can exist. I want to make one or two special pleas. Generally speaking, as far as male teachers are concerned, the provisions of the Bill bring in all the assistants in the elementary schools of the country, and also a large number of headmasters. But there is one class of assistant male teacher I want the Minister to consider. Generally speaking, all the male teachers in the provinces will be able to come within the scope of the Bill, but not those who are on the maximum in London and in the extra-Metropolitan district. The maximum there is £408 per annum. These teachers fear that this narrow margin will mean that they will be unable to come under the Bill.
I want the Minister to consider one or two points in relation to this matter. In the first place, these male teachers in the London area are within the general structure of the Burnham salary scheme and there is a provision in that scheme for Scale IV which allows for a higher rate of payment in London and the extra-Metropolitan area. I do not know all the considerations which entered into the determination of these standards of pay, but I should imagine that one of them which entered into the consideration of a slightly higher level for the London area was the cost of living in the area. I think it can be justly said that from the point of view of real income these people are on a level with those in other areas. I hope that will be considered as an argument in favour of bringing in that class of male assistant teacher in London. I know that there will always be marginal cases, and that if the figure were fixed at £500 or £600, there would still be marginal cases; but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this one is of an exceptional nature, in that it affects a whole class, even though there are not very many involved.
If the Minister considers the matter carefully, I think he will see that it is an exception which, if granted, would not open the door to other applicants, because, among other reasons, the payment of these people is part of the general salary structure.
My second argument is that the real income of these men is below the £400 level. The State has decided that teachers must not continue to teach in schools after they have reached the age of 65, and they are compelled to retire with a pension. In order to get that pension, the State has further declared that contributions must be levied from the teacher's salary. In other words, as the legal phrase goes, the contribution on account of pension is an expense due to the particular occupation of the teacher. If the contribution paid for superannuation is taken into account, the whole class of male assistant teachers in London will he able to come under the provisions of this Bill. I can assure the Minister, from letters I have received, that there is an exceptionally keen desire that this opportunity should be presented to these teachers. I do not wish to hide the fact that this benefit is anxiously desired by the male teachers, and indeed there are signs that the women teachers are beginning to desire it as keenly. The profession as a whole is very grateful for the opportunity of being able to come into the scheme. I think it would be a pity and indeed an injustice if these male teachers in London, who happen to have a gross salary of £408, although their net salary is below that figure owing to the fact that there is a legal compulsory contribution on account of pensions, were kept out of the scheme.
I think I have shown clearly that here is an exception which need not upset the provisions of the Bill. I gather that under the Bill the Minister has power to make regulations and to consult various interests. He will have power to make regulations concerning the various factors that are to be taken into account in regard to the income limit. In that case, I hope we may have from him an assurance at least that he has not completely closed the door to consideration of this case of male teachers in the London area particularly, and that, even if we cannot in Committee move amendments designed to allow a larger number to come under the scheme, he will consider

sympathetically the case of these male teachers. In conclusion I would like to thank the Minister, and to express my gratitude to the civil servants concerned, particularly Sir Walter Kinnear, who has always shown a keen and sympathetic interest in those teachers who are not provided for under the ordinary superannuation scheme which applies to teachers.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Guy: I am sure the Minister must be gratified with the very friendly reception which the Bill has received in all quarters of the House. I am not surprised by that reception, for I regard this Bill as a very valuable contribution to and extension of our social services. I am particularly glad that the pledge which the Prime Minister gave at the last General Election is being carried out so effectively—a pledge that, in spite of the expenses that would have to be incurred in building up our Defence Forces, the social services would not only be maintained, but extended. There can be no question as to the need for the Bill, and that has been generally admitted. I would like particularly to mention the class of small shopkeepers, both men and women, to many of whom this scheme will bring a real benefit, because many of them have suffered not only from the trade depression but also, in my division, from the operations of slum clearance.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in opening the Debate from the Opposition Benches, truly said that the country is becoming more and more pension-minded, but he rather suggested that there was a demand for the extension of non-contributory pensions, a statement which I challenge most definitely. In the course of inquiries which I have made, I have found, little or no evidence of any such demand, but I have found a genuine demand, which I hope will gradually become effective, for an extension of contributory pensions. It will be generally admitted that nowadays we get very little for nothing, and that even in the case of charity there must be some sacrifice of independence and pride in many cases.
As to the one criticism that has been made—the differentiation between the salary qualification of men and women—I confess that the arguments used by the


Minister in favour of the differentiation did not entirely convince me, and I think that the same arguments might have been used as a justification for making the limits the same. Admitting that there must be a variation in circumstances, and that in many cases the women have not the dependants that the married men have, these very circumstances would make these women on the higher salary scale of £250 to £400 better "lives" from the insurance point of view. They would be more likely to pay for 52 stamps in a year instead of a minimum of 26, and consequently, instead of being a drain on the fund, they would be an advantage to it. Consequently, I think the question of raising the salary limit for women to the same level as that for men should be reconsidered.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton and one or two other hon. Members mentioned the position of the unmarried women under this Bill, which involves to a certain extent their position under the compulsory Contributory Pensions Acts. A question was put to the Minister on that point and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to it. I would put it in a rather more definite form than that in which it was addressed to the Minister. Is it the case that under the compulsory Contributory Pensions Acts, there are, approximately, 4,000,000 unmarried insured women whose contributions, with their employers' contributions, at the rate of 5½d. per head per week, total about £5,000,000 and that only 80,000 unmarried women get contributory old age pensions at 65 costing only £2,000,000? I admit that these figures are not official, but when some of us who went on a deputation to the Minister last summer, asked for an inquiry into the question, we were told that the facts were all known and that an inquiry was unnecessary. I, therefore, ask whether these figures are accepted or not? If they are not, what are the correct figures? If they are correct, and they have not been challenged yet, they indicate that single women under the existing scheme are not getting a fair deal.
To use the Minister's own expression, one fundamental consideration in these pension schemes should be justice to the beneficiaries and justice to the State. In this case it would appear that a class of

beneficiaries are being treated unjustly. Because of that fact, many of the unmarried women who will be affected by the Bill, are a little suspicious about its actuarial basis. I must confess that I take some of the statements in the Government Actuary's Report with a certain amount of hesitation, because it seems to me that in the estimates which are being made of the value of these old age pensions to different people, and to the women in particular, no allowance is made for the cases in which the woman does not survive. There must be a definite death rate between the ages of 55 and 65 and in the case referred to by the Minister of the single woman who could go to an ordinary insurance company and get a policy to cover the old age pension at 65, at 1s. 6d. a week, there is this distinction. Not only is the risk covered of the death rate before 65 but there is also, I understand, a surrender value and one of the grievances of the unmarried insured woman in this scheme is that there is no surrender value for her insurance policy. She may contribute year after year to the old age pension, the only pension to which she can contribute, but even when she has paid 15 or 20 years contributions, there is no surrender value. I should like to know whether the contingencies to which I refer have been taken into consideration.
The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) referred to the possibility of working out a graduated scale which would allow for a differentiation in benefits. There is a good deal to be said for that suggestion, and I concur in all the points which the hon. Lady made. I would, however, put forward an alternative suggestion with reference to the single women in particular. Incidentally I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that they have now a large organisation in the country and that that organisation is growing steadily. It is known to my hon. Friend and to the Government that they have been pressing for some time for a reduction of the age at which old age pensions are payable. They have a case for that, into which I am not going now, on grounds of equity and finance. But in connection with this Bill I wonder whether it would be possible to allow for the payment of old age pensions at the age of 55 to single women who will come in under the Bill, provided that there is an adjustment of


contributions. That is a point which might be considered in Committee, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate whether it is a matter to which consideration would be given by the Government. To put it in another way, I ask whether it would be possible, instead of having the age of 65 for the payment of the pension to single women who come in under the Bill up to the age of 55, to provide as an alternative that they might come in up to the age of 45, with an adjusted contribution, actuarially calculated, qualifying them for the old age pension at the age of 55 instead of 65. That proposition, I submit, ought to receive consideration. Although I admit that the case of the single women who come in under this Bill is not, from the point of view of hardship, so strong as the case of the insured single women mentioned by several speakers, yet there is definite evidence that it is extraordinarily difficult for middle-aged or elderly women in insurable industry to retain their employment or to obtain other employment if they lose it.
In the Bill we have a measure of consolidation of unemployment insurance and a measure of consolidation of National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions legislation. This additional instalment of pension legislation will make a definite advance but before that is done, there ought to be a complete survey of the contributory asocial services with one idea in mind—not to make the system intricate and involved, but to see whether there could not be more elasticity to meet the variation of circumstances and more simplification, possibly with a view to developing a single comprehensive insurance scheme under which there would be one card and one stamp per week for all the different divisions. I believe that such a scheme was adumbrated 10 or 15 years ago, and that such a simplification and consolidation of the insurance system would be generally welcome and would facilitate administration. Meanwhile, we have available in the Bill an instalment of reform, and I congratulate the Government on having introduced it.

8.45 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I would like to join in congratulating the Minister on this excellent Bill, but I am sorry that I must raise one point of criticism. I have had a large number of letters from my constituents. A great number of women are

educated at Cambridge, and go out into the world to take independent positions, and I have been inundated with letters and representations from societies of these ladies on the omission from the Bill of women earning between £250 and £400 a year. The Minister in his opening speech was excellent and explanatory on all subjects, but his explanation on this particular point was, I thought, rather technical and difficult for the ordinary person to understand. I do not think that the ordinary Member who is not given to actuarial figures and considerations of that sort would easily understand it. Although many of them were undergraduates at Cambridge and took their degree, they are not people who would naturally understand that sort of thing. They are very likely classical people like myself, or they might be moral science or historical people, and they would not understand actuarial matters. I suggest, therefore, that in winding up the Debate to-night the Parliamentary Secretary would be very kind if he would make the explanation on rather more popular lines, so that my constituents should not fail to have a clear view of why they have been omitted from this Bill.
I have taken the trouble to get the points which they want elucidated so that the Parliamentary Secretary may have them. The questions they ask are these: (1) Do the women whose incomes are between £250 and £400 really need any help from this scheme? (2) Can it be expected that women could save sufficient from an income within these limits to make provision for old age? (3) Can it be expected that a widow with dependent children could save sufficient from such an income to make provision for the children in the event of her death? The points that I have been asked particularly to stress are these: That the women who are earning salaries are often called upon to support parents, and to help with the education of younger members of their families; that a woman has greater difficulty than a man in retaining employment after middle age; that a woman earning £250 is less likely than a man earning £400 to rise to a salary so high as to make the help offered by this scheme unnecessary; that a woman's expectation of life being longer than a man's, women on the average have a longer old age to which to look forward; that many of these women are widows


with dependent children. These are the questions and points which I have been asked to bring to the attention of the Minister, and I shall be grateful, not for myself, but for the various people who have corresponded with me, if the Minister can explain the reason for the omission of these ladies in popular language so that they will be able to understand it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said earlier in the Debate that this country was daily becoming more pension-minded. If I may state it in other language, I would say that the people of this country are day by day becoming filled with a sense of economic insecurity. It is an indication of the insecurity that prevails not merely among manual wage earners, but among the classes to whom this Bill specially applies, that we should have this demand for a pension of 10s. a week at 65 years of age. An hon. Member on the other side waxed very lyrical because a Bill of this kind with its commitments of the Treasury of something like £1,000,000 a year, was only possible because we had a strong National Government which had restored prosperity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer. There is so much prosperity that professional people want to be sure that they have 10s. a week at 65. That is sufficient commentary upon the security which the capitalist system provides. This problem of economic security, this fear of old age, is growing as the present system becomes more mechanised and rationalised. Large numbers of professional people, such as clerks, managers and salesmen, have been displaced and thrown out of employment. In a town like Swansea 20 years ago, before the coal mining industry was rationalised, you could find 100 offices, each one selling coal and employing black-coated workers. Now they have been squeezed out by rationalisation. We on this side sympathise with these people who have been the victims of this system and who feel the dread of economic insecurity, and as far as this Bill meets their claims we welcome it.
We want, at the same time, to supplement the appeal that has been made by several speakers on both sides that the

time is overdue for a comprehensive survey and overhaul of our system of social insurance. For a long time, beginning in 1912 when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) began with health insurance and unemployment insurance, we have passed a long list of Bills, one on top of the other. They all deal with a great social problem. It is one problem —the problem of providing against the contingencies that destroy the livelihood of the people. It is one problem and not a series of problems. With all this legislation we have all kinds of absurd anomalies. A man who may lose his livelihood by accident may get 30s. a week. If he loses his livelihood by illness he gets less. If he loses it through economic depression he gets another sum. All these are one contingency, however; they are one risk, the risk of losing livelihood. We ought to be able to develop a social insurance system that will guarantee to a man and his dependants a sum that will give him a livelihood, irrespective of the cause by which he lost it.
I join in the appeal that it is time we had a comprehensive survey for the working out of one system of social insurance. I have said very often that if all the money that is deducted from wages and the money which people pay to all kinds of societies on Friday and Saturday nights were collected into one State fund, I am positive it will be found that the workers are contributing such sums as would enable them to get a decent old age pension on which to retire. The time has passed when we should keep passing one piece of legislation on top of another. This Bill will create anomalies. We bring in a Measure to remedy an anomaly and it creates a new one. People will be left outside the scope of this scheme. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) pleaded for teachers who will be outside by a matter of £8 by reason of the Burnham scale of salaries. It all shows the urgent need there is for a comprehensive survey and a building up of a real system of social insurance, and I join with the hon. Member for Westhoughton in hoping that if the time does come—and I believe that it will come sooner than hon. Members opposite think—when our party sit on the benches opposite, this will be one of the first services which we shall nationalise. This is a real social service, built upon social credit and social faith,


and it ought to be one of the first services to be nationalised, because I am convinced that the amount of money paid already for insurance would be adequate to cover the cost if it were properly administered.
Partial as this Measure is, it is the first fairly major Bill dealing with old age pensions, and that being so I regret that the Minister of Health and the Government have not taken advantage of the opportunity to deal with one of the grave anomalies under the existing contributory pensions system, the anomaly by which a wife does not qualify for a pension until she becomes 65. Every hon. Member knows of pathetic cases which come under that head. At 65 a man is likely to lose his employment. Even at the age of 55 a man who gets out of a job finds it very difficult to secure fresh employment. If he is out of work for 12 or 18 months the process at which he works has become so revolutionised in the interval that if he does get back into work it is almost like taking up a new occupation. I have heard Members say, and the statement is being made in the Press, that there is a shortage of miners in certain districts. Why? Because no coalowner will look at a man over 45 years of age. The men of 45 or 50 are too old to stand the pace. The age of 65 is really long past the age at which men are now being compelled to retire from industry, and the Government ought to have taken advantage of the opportunity which this Bill presents to deal with the problem of those men. What would it cost? It would be only a trivial sum compared with the amounts which we shovel out for all sorts of purposes.
Only last week I came across a case of a man who had been unemployed for several years. He and his wife had been receiving 26s. a week, but for the crime of becoming 65 he has lost that 26s. When you reach the honourable age of 65 you cease to become chargeable to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and go on to the Old Age Pension Fund. Instead of 17s. a week the man now gets only nos.—a wonderful reward for old age—and his wife, because she is only 62, does not get a penny. Therefore, in place of the 26s. all that that couple are receiving now is 10s. a week. That old man and that old lady, who had given a lifetime of service to this country, were

for the first time compelled to endure the bitter experience of going to the public assistance committee. The Government have missed an opportunity there of rectifying one of the gravest anomalies of our social insurance system.
Because of the existing insecurity there is now great competition to get within the terms of this Bill. All kinds of people want to come in. Already questions have been put about the age limit, but I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill that it looks pretty hopeless to try to get the age limit raised beyond 55. I wish to put another case. In the areas where there has been industrial depression there are numbers of men who were once in insurable employment but who, after a year or two of unemployment, gave up all hope of being able to get into insurable employment again and started upon jobs on their own. Some of those men had worked in the pits and for eight, 12 or 16 years had been contributors to all the pensions schemes, including the contributory pensions scheme. They contributed far more to social insurance than they ever got out of it. Then they went out of insurable employment, as I have explained, and now, if they happen to be over 55, they are not able to come into this scheme as voluntary contributors.
Is it possible for the Government to make a concession to men in such circumstances? Could such a man over 55 years of age be accepted under this scheme if he could prove that for a certain period he was a contributor towards insurance? I think there is a case there which the Government should be able to meet. Suppose they were admitted on the basis that every five years' contributions as a compulsory member would cover a year's extension of the age in the case of the man over 55. We bring into the scheme people of 54 years of age—good luck to them—who have never been in insurable employment before and have never contributed a penny, and shall we throw out the man of 56 who has contributed towards insurance for perhaps 15 or 20 years? I plead for consideration for these men who have contributed towards health insurance and unemployment insurance and, in some cases, towards the contributory old age pension scheme.
Further, where a man is over 55, if his wife is under 55 will there be an


opportunity for her to insure for a pension? The man being over 55 cannot pay a contribution to cover the two of them, himself and his wife, but suppose his wife is 52, can she join the scheme and buy an old age pension for herself? I stress these cases because, like all hon. Members who represent mining divisions, I know of many men who worked hard until they were driven out of employment in the mines and so were driven out of insurance, and who have since taken on little jobs and who are now 56 years of age. I feel that such men, with a record of five, 10 or 15 years of insurance, ought to receive consideration in this matter. Finally, I say that we welcome this Bill, but we regard it only as another brick added to a building which we think is becoming very ugly, because it needs reconstruction; and we hope the day is not far distant when the whole system of social insurance will be surveyed and co-ordinated and made worthy of the people of this country.

9.5 p.m.

Miss Ward: I should first of all like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the introduction of this Bill, which, I am certain, will bring benefits to a very large number of people and will be warmly welcomed throughout the country. I would also take the opportunity of saying how much I regret that, up to the moment, the Government have not seen their way to meet the case of the man who reaches the age of 65 and whose wife is some years younger than he is. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be well aware that the case of this class of people and the implementation of a pension for the wife of earlier age have been fought for by the party to which he and I belong. I regret that we have not received that sympathetic consideration that we should like. I know there is no possibility of obtaining such a concession in the Bill, but this is an opportunity of advocating the case. I feel strongly on the fact that we should be getting thousands of men who have been of inestimable value and benefit to the country, who have a first-class industrial record and who have never been a drain upon the resources of the country, but who, at the age of 65, are no longer able to follow their employment and, for the first time in their lives, are sent to

the public assistance authorities to obtain a small sum of money for their wives. The case deserves the consideration of the Government, and although I am particularly glad to support the Bill to-day, this is an excellent opportunity to advocate the case, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of it.
I hope that every opportunity will be taken on the lines of publicity for the people who have only one year in which to exercise their right to take advantage of the benefits offered by the Bill. Publicity is the most important thing. I cannot think of anything more tragic than that the years should have elapsed and that a man or woman should realise that the provisions of the Bill are not available to them. I am not certain whether the Ministry of Health realise how inadequate sometimes is the information available for people who come within the scope of the various National Health Insurance measures. I feel that strongly with regard to people who have exhausted their right to National Health Insurance and contributory pensions and who are turned off these schemes because of prolonged unemployment. If there had been more publicity in the industrial areas, and more advice to them about what they were likely to lose by failing to keep up their contributions, and as to the steps they ought and could take to keep themselves in insurance, a great number of the human tragedies would have been avoided. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that as wide publicity as possible is given to the Bill.
I turn to another controversial point, relating to women workers. I shall not go over all the points, which were made admirably by my colleagues, but I want to add one or two other points. I agree with what has been said about differentiation of income, but I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend did not take the fullest opportunity to explain exactly why the Government had decided to make that differentiation. Probably the Government would have been wiser to have announced their intention a little earlier. The matter is very technical, and if there is an explanation—and I hope there is a better one than we had earlier in the Debate—it would be wise if we had an opportunity of hearing it earlier so that we might understand the whole facts of the case. So close has my right hon. Friend been about this subject that it


makes me all the more suspicious that the explanation is not entirely satisfactory.
I want to raise a specific case. My right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech that the Bill was designed to meet the case of the dressmakers and the music teachers. They typify a section of the community who have had very little done for them in the way of social services. We very much welcome the opportunity that those people will have. I think that the argument was that after a woman had had a greater income than 250 she ought to be in the position of having saved for her own old age through ordinary channels. My right hon. Friend did not make that point particularly clear. He referred to the is. 6d. for which you can insure for a pension at 65, but I do not think he made much reference to the age factor. He did not give us the case of the woman of 40, 45 or 50. I gather that it would be very much easier to provide for old age if you started at 35. Suppose a dressmaker or music teacher is earning £6 a week at the age of 45; she will be barred from the benefits in the Bill. A music teacher or dressmaker takes a long time to build up a connection. Theirs are not occupations which you can go into and make a large income very quickly.
In my own part of the world, dressmakers and music teachers of reputation have had a difficult time during the period of the industrial depression, and they have not had much opportunity of earning £250. Now, when times are getting better, you may find that they go suddenly into the category of people earning more than £250; you may find them getting into the category of earning £6 per week, which would bar them from the Bill. It seems hard that these people who are earning £6 a week should suddenly be regarded as being able to save sufficient between the ages of 45 and 65 to provide themselves with the benefits that they would have been able to get had they been only in the category of £250. You get the anomalous position that it would be probably very much better if those people were to refuse orders for dressmaking and refuse to take pupils, so that they might qualify on 1st January, 1938. I suggest that that case ought to be considered. I hope that the Minister will consider it in the light of all the representations that have been made.
I come now to a further point. I always try, at any rate, to keep an open mind, and it may be that, when my hon. Friend comes to reply, he will elucidate this very peculiar and unfortunate situation; but if he elucidates it to such an extent that he feels that he has a perfectly good and sound case, then I would try another form of approach, and that is to see whether it would be possible to obtain a concession. The concession I would suggest is that this class of women, with incomes between £250 and £400, should be allowed the same concession that is being made to men and women of 55, and that they should be given one year in which to come into the scheme if they so desire. I am not now talking about the inequality of the sexes, but about the practical details of the scheme. If they were all allowed to come in, that would at any rate remove a grievance from a considerable number of people in the country. Then, if everybody else in the categories covered by the Bill came into insurance in the future at an early age, there would be at that early age fewer women who were earning incomes of over £250, so that thereafter all those who wanted to take advantage of the scheme would be covered. It seems to me that I am offering a very good "get-out" for the Government, and I hope they will consider it. If it is argued that a very small number of people will be prejudiced by this differentiation of income, that is an equally good argument for my concession, and I think that at any rate it would meet our views so far. It does not, of course, meet the fact that the Bill promotes sex inequality, but it would at any rate meet the grievances of people who are going to be prejudiced, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it in that spirit.
Those of us who support the Government have always been ready to believe that the Government believe in equality. I do not count myself a feminist. My political career and life have been spent in terrific industrial fights from the point of view of electioneering, and I have always been, so to speak, on the industrial side at every stage in my career. Therefore, I am not what is naturally termed a feminist. But there are occasions when one feels that it is a good thing to put the woman's point of view, and so I would end on this note. I have always felt that the Government believed in equality, and I can very well remember,


when we have tried to get provisions inserted in certain Bills that there should be a woman magistrate, a woman included on a commission, and so on, the clever arguments that were put forward from the Government Front Bench to the effect that it was a pity, in these enlightened days of progressive civilisation, to dwell on sex inequality, that there really was sex equality, and that for the future we ought to drop mentioning either men or women in Bills, and to assume that this country regards women in the same category from the point of view of efficiency as men. So we have been persuaded on occasion not to press for the specific mention of a woman as a woman, on the ground that we believed in equality and women would get their chance in the ordinary way. It is, therefore, rather disappointing to find that a completely new Bill should go in for this sex disqualification. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will find it in his heart to think over the points that I have raised, and, if we cannot get the whole thing, to see whether he can grant us this concession.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I must confess that I was very disappointed when this Bill was introduced. I looked for something better from the present Minister of Health. The Government appear to me to have lost a great opportunity in connection with this question of pensions. I appreciate that provision is being made for so many of the black-coated workers and people whose incomes are such that they are not able to come under the ordinary scheme; but it is also, I think, within the knowledge of the House that there are many anomalies in the other scheme which the Government should have taken the opportunity of correcting at the present time. One of the reasons why I intervene in this Debate is that I am sure that all Members in the House must have been terribly worried from time to time because of cases that have come to their notice through constituents in which widows were unable to get their pensions because of the lack of a few contributions, owing possibly to circumstances such as often arise in connection with unemployment. I wish that the Ministry of Health, when they were dealing with this matter, had had some concern for the recasting of the old scheme so as to make conces-

sions which would obviate many of the tragedies in connection with the present system. The Government, however, have not seen fit to do that, and I feel that the country will think all the less of the Government on that account.
There is another point that I think is worth mentioning again. I listened to the previous speaker with great interest, and I agree that the difference which is being made in the treatment of men and women in this Measure is perfectly shocking. I think it is scandalous that the Government should put this additional hardship upon women in connection with the pension scheme. Women have to pay their taxes, to pay their rates, to make their contributions, just as everyone else in the community does, and yet the Government are imposing here a penalty upon them because they are women. I certainly join in the protest, and I hope that the pressure upon the Government will yet be such that this differentiation between the sexes and this hardship upon the women will be obviated by the giving of equal treatment to men and women in this Measure. There has been a good deal of agitation in the country with regard to the treatment of spinsters under the old Measure, and, frankly, the present hardship which is being imposed on women is on all fours with the unfair treatment that women seem to have got all along in connection with National Health and pensions schemes.

Mr. George Griffiths: And unemployment insurance.

Mr. Stephen: Yes, and unemployment insurance. In a country like Britain the men are supposed to be chivalrous and considerate with regard to the women but it seems as if their chivalry departs when it comes to giving the women social justice and they are always anxious to get a bit more for the men. I believe that if this Government had been courageous enough in this Measure to provide pensions for spinsters at 55 the Bill would have been one of the greatest measures of social reform that they could have carried through, and I trust that in this connection there will be so much criticism of this Measure and so much interest aroused in it that the movement on the part of the spinsters for pensions at 55 will receive a great impetus, and that a Government in the near future will be compelled to do tardy justice. I hope that the solitary


representative of the Government on the Front Bench will convey this further point to the Parliamentary Secretary. For entry into the scheme there is an age limit of 55. The point I wish to stress is that there are many people who were under the old scheme who dropped their insurance or lost their insurance and are now possibly a little over 55. I have had correspondence from people with regard to this matter. They find that after having sought during years to get within the pension scheme they are now to be shut out by this age limit of 55 years.
There is a Government subsidy in connection with the working of this scheme. That means that everyone who comes under this Bill is to get a certain gift from the taxpayers of the country. They are to get so much public money. Why should others who are possibly 56 or 57 be treated as if they were step-children and be cut out of the will? Why should there be an age limit imposed in this way? When the Bill comes into operation a person who becomes 55 the day before will be left out. Another person whose birthday is two days later will be in. I know it may be said that you have got to have limits. I remember there was an extraordinary provision put in the 1925 Act that those who became widows before 4th January, 1926, were put into a much worse position than widows whose husbands lived a little longer, and it seemed to me often as if the State regarded those women who could not keep their husbands alive the extra day or two as criminals and subjected them to a great penalty as compared with the others. People who have had a former insurance and made many contributions and are now over the age of 55 should be enabled by some provision to come into the scheme. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a concession in this respect.
I would like also to make this appeal. It is a great pity that when legislation like this comes before the House so much is put there not on a basis of what the majority of Members of the House want but on the basis of what the officials and the Minister responsible think is all that is possible. Always in the background there is the Treasury, and the Treasury in the background always seems to have a very chilling effect on the generosity of even decent, well-intentioned Ministers. I would suggest that the Minister should make this Bill a matter which he puts

fully at the disposal of the House, so that this provision shall be the provision which the elected representatives of the people desire. It is quite true that there may be financial difficulties and all the rest of it, but I would suggest that these financial difficulties should be put to the House with regard to Amendments that are put down, and it should be left to the responsibility of the House without the Whips being put on. I remember when the Labour Governments were in office in 1924 and 1929–31 there was always the difficulty with regard to financial considerations. When some of us in the party were pressing for improvements and had the support of the majority of the party, very often financial considerations were said to make it absolutely impossible for these things to be done. In spite of the figures that were given, the majority were not convinced.
I hope that Members on all sides of the House will have many suggestions to make as to how the Bill could be made more generous and more satisfactory and how many of the anomalies within it can be corrected. I wish we could get a new precedent made by allowing greater liberty to Members to improve the Measure. To my mind the great weakness of the whole scheme is that there is this terrible problem facing so many old people in very poor circumstances, that they are denied pensions when they should be put on a proper pensions basis. Nothing is being done to obviate the hardships under the former scheme. Nothing is being done for the spinsters, women of 55 who have lost their employment and have no hope of getting into employment again, and who should be upon the pension system of the country. We should have an assurance that the Government will go into the question of the pension system and do something to correct anomalies. I also hope that, as the Measure proceeds through Committee, the Government will be able to accept many Amendments, making the scheme much sounder and more hopeful for so many of the people of the country.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: As I have listened to the whole of the Debate, with the possible exception of three-quarters of an hour, it is a little difficult to know precisely where to begin. The comparative moderation of the early part of the


speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) reinforced to a large extent the compelling and forceful arguments of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) against differentiation. I, too, regret the differentiation between the sexes which is evident in the Bill, but my mind is not quite so open upon this matter as that of the hon. Member for Wallsend. I shall be interested to see precisely how she and others are answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. The House has grown to respect the passionate eloquence of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. j. Griffiths), who pleaded for the nationalisation of the whole system of pensions. I do not share what is no doubt to him the sanguine view about the early advent to power of the Labour party, but, as he did not tell us why in his opinion they are likely to come into power soon, there is, I dare to think, no reason why on this occasion at least I should tell him why they will not.—[Interruption.]—We will join issue with the greatest possible pleasure on some more appropriate occasion.
I wish to support the hon. Members for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) and Cambridge University (Sir John Withers);n their remarks about differentiation, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). I thought her speech was a very effective reply to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). I cannot emulate the moral uplift to which he referred, nor can I understand his nice and elegant distinctions between the sexes which are so completely hidden from the rest of us, nor was I able to follow everything that he said; in particular two sentences mystified me. The hon. Member said, "It is a question whether under the law of equity you should not grant compensation or take over the thing holus-bolus. I think," continued the hon. Member, "I am presenting the thing fairly and clearly." No doubt it was clear, fair and square TO him as, in his own words, he "brought the illegitimate into the legitimate channel." What is important to many of us is that the Bill means the redemption of an electoral pledge. Perhaps 18 months is a longish time for some of us to have to wait, but the eventual fulfilment of a promise is a good deal better

than its denial or its repudiation. I thank the Minister of Health, and bearing in mind his proved ability to carry out his policy or the Government's policy, I regret that in the autumn of 1935 tie was not carrying the portfolio for the Post Office in his left hand, and in his right that of the Foreign Office. It would have been a rare and refreshing spectacle, and perhaps the "general taxpayer" cited by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) would then he able to sustain an even more ambitious programme of pensions.
On the Second Reading we are at liberty to regret omissions. Why is there not the fullest possible equality of treatment for the sexes? We have heard no explanation of this remarkable discrimination. In particular I was struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham, full of eloquent reflections and recollections, but beginning with a premise which I did not understand. He said the responsibilities of the two sexes are different. Their functions may be—the hon. Member for the Scotland Division knows that—but the whole tendency of our contemporary life is to equate their responsibilities. Having fully considered all that the Minister had to say upon this matter, I still think that women are unfairly treated, not in the bulk but as individuals. I wish to plead, in particular, for the claims of spinsters, who have been pressing their claims with an importunity which is, I believe, Biblically identified with widows. But I recall that the importunate widow was eventually successful, and I do not say that importunity qua importunity is necessarily to be deprecated. Many interests are importunate in the House and in the Lobbies outside.
A Government, particularly a National Government, enjoys pressure. The Lord President of the Council, when Prime Minister, told a deputation from the Churches to go on pressing, and pressing, and pressing. [Interruption.] I am glad I am audible to the Labour party. But I want the spinsters in particular to take note. Long may they press! But I hope they will not have to press too long. For their claims are not in fact exorbitant. If necessary and, to be within the Rules of Order, I would advance that claim upon the footing of adjusted contribution, although I deny that that is necessarily a fair basis. On 21st February, 1935, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,


in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh, said:
The cost of granting contributory old age pensions at 55, instead of at the present age of 65, to unmarried insured women would be an additional £4,500,000 a year. I could not without prolonged calculations indicate what increase of contributions would be necessary to cover this extension of pension rights, and I hope that in the circumstances my hon. Friend will not press this part of his inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, zest February, 1935; col. 524, Vol. 298.]
Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Minister of Health is an unkindly man. Four and a-half million pounds is, of course, a considerable sum. In former days, certainly in terms of pre-War Budgets, I believe it would have been regarded as almost an astronomic figure. But I think it is relevant to recall the sums we are spending to-day on other objects. If, for example, we can find so much to attain what I dare to think to be the very necessary ends of defending ourselves and repairing the shattered foundations of general security, surely we can do this service to lessen the rigours undergone by ageing women. Their lot is a peculiar one. The sexes are not numerically equal in this country. These women belong to the majority. In the nature of the case they cannot expect to marry or have very little prospect of marrying and so of enjoying the warmth and companionship of a home. Until the age of 65, right on through middle age, they are doomed to-day to a cold and toilsome loneliness. If the Government like, this entirely unenviable plight can be redressed by them. Yesterday the President of the Board of Education, in one of the noblest and most striking speeches I have heard for months, remarked on the kindliness that was to be observed in our national life. Here the Government have a chance not only to exhibit the rudiments of kindliness but the elements of chivalry as well.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I have no doubt that this is one of the right hon. Gentleman's bright days. He has had the privilege of introducing a Bill which brings some comfort to people who have been outside the existing scheme, and for that reason I and my hon. and right hon. Friends will not oppose this Measure, not that we would agree with all that he has done. My first complaint

about the right hon. Gentleman is that now, having had time to consider the broader problem, he has chosen to introduce a Bill of such a narrow scope. We have had a good deal of experience of pensions ever since the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), extended on one or two occasions since. We have now gathered a volume of experience about pensions which we ought to relate to the situation to-day. That situation is one which has been recognised on all sides of the House. We have more man-power than we can usefully use. It is possible to produce all that this nation requires for its needs with a far smaller labour army than ever before. One way to get out of the difficulty of having too much labour is to relieve people of the responsibility of wage-earning a little earlier than is the case at the present time. Although we are thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for this small Measure, I hope that he will crown his career by a Bill of much larger magnitude.
There are one or two points to which I would ask the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. I realise that the Bill as drawn makes it difficult for us to move the kind of Amendments that we should like to move. The first question which has been referred to in the Debate to-clay on more than one occasion is that of the people over 55. I realise the difficulty of establishing an age limit. Whatever age limit you may put into a Bill, the people who are just outside it are bound to complain, and there is no escape. If the right hon. Gentleman had said 50 instead of 55, the people who were 51 would have been just as vociferous as the people who are now 56, but the right hon. Gentleman, having admitted the right or the moral claim of ageing people to a pension at 65, might have devised some scheme which would have permitted people who were above the age limit to take advantage of the benefits. There are people who are 56, people who are 57, people who are approaching the age when their positions are becoming in jeopardy, people whose cases are just as hard as that of the people who are now 54, and it is a matter for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he could not make some provision for people who are now over 55, so that on attaining


the age of 65 they could, by having made the appropriate contributions, take advantage of the provisions of this Bill.
There is a further point. There are people who have never been in the insurable class who may, as soon as this Bill becomes law, enjoy its benefits. There are people who have been in the insurable class and who have perhaps over a period of years paid contributions who are now outside it. Is there not some method whereby these people for whom the original Act was intended should be able to come back within the fold of the right hon. Gentleman? There is the case of the wife of a man who was in the insurable class and who for one reason or another is now not in the insurable class. Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some arrangement whereby the wife might become a voluntary contributor under this scheme? I realise the difficulties with which the Minister is faced, the difficulties with which I was faced in 1931 when I was dealing with widows of 55 and over, and also the difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman tried to place me, and would do so again. If he feels as I do now, and as he did then, I think he might have some regard for those people who are now over 55, for whom some provision ought to be made, and might be made, and which I think would meet with a response from people who are now drawing near the end of their industrial life. It might be done by increased contribution, or it might be by the insertion of provisions in regard to their previous insured position. I know the difficulty of dealing with these matters in Committee, but everybody feels that these people ought to be dealt with. I should like to know whether it would not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to devise some scheme whereby people who are just past the arbitrary age of 55 might be brought within the scheme.
My second point is one that has been emphasised to-day by the superior sex in this House. I realise that there may have to be a differentiation between the salary scales of men and women, due to the fact that generally husbands keep wives and very few wives keep husbands, but the House ought to have a little clearer explanation of the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has fixed the maximum salary for men at £400 and for women at £250.
I listened with interest and eagerness to the right hon. Gentleman but I do not think that his reasons were very convincing, and r am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to justify the great distinction made between £400 and 250.
Now I come to a point which is rather more technical in character. Certain apprehensions have arisen and have been voiced to-night about the effect of the scheme. I regard it as a fundamental principle of Government that where you are developing the law you should not prejudice the rights or claims of people who have already enjoyed certain rights. That seems to me to be very important. I had hoped that the Bill did not prejudice the claims either of persons or of organisations, but I now understand from the Minister's speech which, again, was not crystal clear, and from a further reading of the Bill, that the excepted classes of persons, the people who, broadly speaking, will profit more by this Bill than anybody else, may be in certain respects prejudiced. The position to-day, as I understand it, is that a person who is in excepted employment can become a voluntary contributor under the principal Act for all purposes except medical benefit. The question to which the House ought to have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary is whether, after the passage of the Bill, persons in excepted employment will be debarred from becoming voluntary contributors under the principal Act for all the purposes of that Act? If that be so, then it seems to me the House is in danger of doing an injustice in depriving people of rights that ^-hey already possess. I am sure that the answer is a perfectly clear one, but it would help us if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an assurance.
There is a further question arising out of the same problem. Present voluntary contributors who have enjoyed these rights for many years and who wish to remain as they are now, have under the Bill, as I understand it, to declare within a specified time their intention to remain where they are. That seems to me to be an inversion of what ought to be the rule. There is on the Statute Book the Trade Union Act. The original Trade Union Act, passed by a Government, not of my political complexion, arranged for people to contract out if they did not like to join a certain political party. The


right hon. Gentleman's Government reversed that and put an obligation on people to contract in. I believe that to be an entirely wrong principle. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is a fact that under this Bill people have to contract in within a specified period. If not, they become automatically excluded from some of the benefits of the Bill. The point at issue is whether the Bill will detrimentally affect certain approved societies, because it this contracting in or contracting out Clause is operated certain approved societies will be prejudiced and may in time have to dissolve themselves.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with some of the questions which involve money and which cannot be dealt with after the Second Reading of the Money Resolution. There is the question of people who are over 55. Once we have passed the Money Resolution I am afraid it may be hopeless for us to do anything further, but at this stage we are entitled to know whether the Government are prepared to make any arrangement to deal with the hard cases of persons who happen to be over 55, even if it may mean an increase in their contributions and the arrangement of special conditions in regard to the terms of their employment. We hope that some arrangement can be made whereby these ageing workers can be brought within the scope of the Bill.

10.4 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry that I have had to be absent during part of the Debate. I want to join in the protests that have been made. I cannot join the chorus of praise about the Bill that has been directed towards the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that there is a good principle in the Bill, and I am glad that new people are to be brought in, but I may perhaps be forgiven a little bitter smile, as representing one of the most distressed areas, when I see the difference in attitude of the Government towards the workers under this Bill and the people with unearned invested income, and their attitude when we are discussing miserable little sixpences and shillings doled out to people under the means test. In this Bill the Government are dealing with a section of workers that it expects to be its supporters. One is glad to see any section of the community needing it brought under the benefits of State aid.
I want to deal with the question about which the women Members of the House have shown deep feeling and about which organisations of women outside the House have also made special representations. I suppose the Minister who is going to reply will again say what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the question of sex not having entered into consideration in relation to the fixing of the income limits. The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been decided in view of the difference of burdens. I hope he will not say that again. It is obviously not true. It is difficult for us to sit patiently while these statements are made which everybody knows are not true. It is impossible to divide people into categories of need if you want to, but in this particular case you have taken a rough-and-ready division which is just a conventional way of dealing with the matter. All the way through the Minister's speech there is the assumption that the man has always to provide for his wife and family. I, as an unmarried woman, find it amusing to observe the way in which the male sex assumes that the wife is invariably and eternally a burden. A wife can be an economic asset, and, after all, the unmarried woman worker has to have someone to do domestic work that the married man gets done for nothing. That is obviously useful work which the wife does. But there are large numbers of men who have married women who have an equal amount of unearned income, or who may themselves have jobs or some other resources. But if they are earning, say, £260 to £300 they are outside the benefit of the scheme though they may have relatives dependent on them. There seems to be an assumption that a woman earning £250 or more is a sort of millionaire who can provide for her relations. A census taken by the Association of Business and Professional Women shows how large a percentage of such women have relatives actually dependent upon them.
Suppose—I admit that this is a large supposition—that everything that the Minister said was true, the fact remains that this is a quesion of principle which concerns not only business women. Here we have a country where the women have nearly complete equality in citizenship, where the women are taxpayers and have to do a great deal of the paying into the


particular funds needed for this scheme. Yet on this question of insurance you take into consideration the perfectly vicious principle of sex differentiation. I had hoped the Government would say that when it was dealing with the citizens of this country it would deal with them as such and not divide them up conventionally according to sex. The Government does not realise what a very large proportion of the organised professional and working women are bitter about the application of this vicious principle. There is no reason whatever why women should be stamped as inferior persons in this way. They do their job and do it well; they pay their taxes and take an interest in the affairs of their country; they keep its laws and accept its burdens, and they have every right to be treated as citizens. This phase of the Bill is so pettifogging. The amount of money to be saved is trifling when compared with the amounts which we are asked to vote day after day for all sorts of things. The differentiation puts upon women a humiliating inferiority. It is unworthy of this Government and I hope that, rather than save the few odd thousands of pounds involved, arrangements will be made to put this matter right and treat citizens on an equal footing.

10.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is entitled to feel very gratified at the course of the Debate and the almost universal praise that has been accorded him for his introduction of the Measure. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked me to deal with two particular points—namely, the excepted classes and the question of women, but before I do so may I be allowed to clear up one or two points which have arisen during the course of the Debate? The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who opened the Debate, said that the people had expected bread and that the Government had given them a bone. My only comment on that is that it is an extremely meaty bone, in fact there is so much meat on the bone that you cannot see the bone for the meat. He also suggested that the Government had been singularly niggardly in dealing with pension and insurance, and that neither in the larger scheme nor in this

had they made a contribution towards the general liability worthy of the Government or of the needs of the scheme. What are the facts? The liabilities of the wider scheme were estimated in March, 1934, at a total of £1,850,000,000, and of that the Government are assuming £1,200,000,000, leaving contributions to represent £650,000,000. In other words, the Government assume two-thirds of the liability for benefits. Under the present scheme the total liabilities, on the estimate made in the Government actuary's report that 350,000 persons will join the scheme, represent about £49,000,000, and the Government's contribution represents £37,000,000 and income from contributions only £12,000,000. In this case the Government's contribution represents three-fourths of the total. It is quite imposible, in view of figures like that, to suggest that the contribution of the Government is other than extremely generous.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked whether it would be possible to do anything for men over 55, and also whether in the case of men who were over 55, and their wives under 55, it would be possible to allow their wives to become voluntary contributors. As regards the first question, I am afraid the answer must be that if you draw a line there are bound to be hard cases. One of the essential conditions of the scheme, if we are going to waive the medical examination, is that a reasonable waiting period should be imposed. A minimum waiting period of ten years is regarded as essential, and that brings you inevitably to 55, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of that age being altered. As regards the point whether in the case of men over 55 with wives under 55 it is possible to allow the wives to become voluntary contributors, that is an interesting suggestion, and is certainly one which between now and the next stage of the Bill we will consider.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) hoped that we should not overlook the need for publicity in this matter, especially in regard to people whose obligations are being changed. I can assure her, although she will hardly need any assurance, that my right hon. Friend, who was once Postmaster-General, is aware of the value of publicity. I can also assure her, as far as


I am concerned, that the experience I obtained as Minister of Pensions, when I saw the hardship inflicted on many of these insured persons because they were not aware of what steps they ought to take to get back into insurance after a lapse owing to a period of unemployment, convinced me of the need for publicity.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) dealt with the question of spinsters, and asked why we had not granted their demands. My answer is that the spinsters' charter, which I have here, states on its first page two aims, the first being to obtain pensions for spinsters at 55 years of age and the second being to obtain a contributory pensions scheme for spinsters who do not at present come under the National Health Insurance scheme. It is clear that the Bill with which we are dealing to-night in effect grants the second of those two requests, and it is equally clear that a Bill dealing with a voluntary contributory scheme could not possibly deal with a reduction of age under a compulsory contributory scheme.
The hon. Member asked me whether certain figures which he quoted were correct. I could not follow his exact figures, but it is true, of course, that as regards the compulsory scheme, part of the contributions of a single woman go towards helping the general fund. That was done deliberately when the Bill was going through the House on the ground that the majority of unmarried women who enter industry at an early age expect in due course to get married, and it was felt to be only fair that their contributions should help to liquidate the burden when they, either as wives at 65 or as widows, possibly with children, would have to come on the fund. It is equally true—and it will be realised by hon. Members when they recall the enormous liability of the State for the general pensions scheme—to say that for the next 30 years no spinster who attains the age of 65 will have paid sufficient in contributions to equal the amount of benefits she will receive between the ages of 65 and 70, and, of course, over the age of 70 the whole of her pension will be at the cost of the State. I think I have dealt with most of the individual questions that were put to me.
I will now turn to the two wider points of excepted persons and women. I ought

to warn the House that the first is a very complicated question, and I apologise if I have to be slightly technical, but I will endeavour to make my remarks as simple as possible. The history of voluntary contributors in this matter is not uninteresting. In the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, provision was made for voluntary contributors, but that provision fell completely flat, and in 1918 so little advantage had been taken of it that it was decided to abrogate the provision. There was, however, the case of people who had contributed for seven years under the compulsory health insurance scheme, but who, as a result of an increase in their salary, were outside the limits and were no longer insured. In the case of those persons it was felt that it would me unfair to deprive them of the advantage of the whole of their years of contributions and it was, therefore, provided that anyone who had been compulsorily insured for two years, should, when his income went over the limit be allowed to become a voluntary contributor for health insurance. Again, that provision fell flat and when in 1925 we introduced the Pensions Bill it was found that during the whole of those seven years only 45,000 persons had taken advantage of the scheme to become voluntary health insurance contributors. I have nothing to say against the health insurance scheme, but it is interesting to see that the opportunity of becoming a voluntary contributor for health insurance made very little appeal indeed to the ordinary person.
Now we come to 1925. Then it was found necessary, for administrative reasons, to interlock the health insurance and pensions schemes and the question arose of what was to happen to the man who wanted to become a voluntary contributor. It was found impossible, for administrative reasons, to allow a man when he went above the £250 limit to become a voluntary contributor for pensions only. He was compelled, in addition to becoming a voluntary contributor for pensions, to become also a voluntary contributor for health insurance. Some hon. Members to-day, including the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) and also I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, used the term "enjoying certain rights." I do not know how that term can properly be


used when, in fact, a man was compelled by law to assume those obligations. The proof that what people wanted as voluntary contributors was pensions and not health insurance is found in the fact that whereas in the seven years between 1918 and 1925, 45,000 persons became voluntary contributors for health insurance, from 1926 to the present time 650,000 persons have become voluntary contributors for both. The implication, surely, is clear that what people want is pensions insurance.
We do not propose to take away from anyone anything which he enjoys at present as a voluntary contributor. Anyone who is a voluntary contributor to-day will have two options. He can either continue being a contributor for health and for pensions insurance, or he can become a contributor for one, dropping the other. If he becomes a contributor for pensions purposes, he will be entitled to continue as a voluntary contributor for pensions at his old rate of 11d. a week instead of at the rate of 1s. 3d. mentioned in the Bill. That is the explanation of contracting in and contracting out. The Bill provides that a person, within the period specified, must decide whether he wants to remain under the present conditions or not. If he does not make known his wish he will automatically come under the new conditions. The reason is not that we wish to deprive him of any right which he enjoys, but because we believe the new scheme is more favourable to him than the old one.
In the first place, as I say, he will continue at the old rate of 'Id. instead of at the rate of 1s. 3d. Under the old scheme, if his contributions in any year fell below 45 he automatically ceased to be a contributor and had no further rights. Under the new scheme he will continue to be a contributor provided his contributions do not fall below 26; but even if he ceases to be a contributor because his contributions fall below 26, the following year he will still have the right to make up his back contributions so that in two years he would have a minimum of 26 a year. If he fails to do that, he will still have the right under the terms of the Bill to certain pension rights for himself and his widow. Therefore, the terms of the new Bill are obviously, from that point of view, better than the existing terms. It is

true that in order to obtain a pension at the full rate, he will have to carry out the terms of the Bill, namely, to have an average of 50 contributions a year instead of 45 as at present. As a set-off against that, whatever his contributions may have been in the past, he will be credited in the books of the scheme with contributions at the full rate of 50 for every year since he came into the scheme. That is a great advance. These are the two choices a man will have to make, and we think that, on the whole, the second is the more favourable. If he chooses to remain under the old scheme, however, he has full right to do so.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with this very technical problem as affecting the 650,000 persons who are now in for health insurance and pensions. Will he carry us a little further? Is it intended to provide those people who remain for health insurance and pensions in future with two separate cards to be stamped, one for pension and one for health insurance, and will not that automatically induce the insured person to remain for pensions only? Suppose they all retain both. We want to know what will happen to those who are voluntary contributors and to persons who are now compulsorily insured whose income exceeds £250 per annum in due course. What will be their option then?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member might have given me a chance to get on to that, because I am trying to explain a very complicated matter to a large number of hon. Members who are not expert like the hon. Member. He might allow me to go step by step, and I will try to make a complete picture for hon. Members who are not as fully acquainted with the question as the hon. Member. I have described so far what will happen to the 650,000 existing voluntary contributors. One of the possible results of giving people this choice is that a certain number of people will abandon their voluntary contributions for Health Insurance, and that will inevitably affect some of the approved societies. It will affect four very materially. We fully realise the difficulties of these specialist societies that cater for this kind of client. We are studying their position very sympathetically to see what steps can be taken to meet them financially to make their position easier.
The hon. Member asked whether a member would have two cards. Anyone who remains under the old scheme will have one card and anyone who comes in under the new scheme will have two cards. Of course in future a man will only have the option of becoming a voluntary contributor under the new conditions. He will still be able to become a voluntary contributor for Health Insurance and pensions, but as far as pensions are concerned only the new provisions of the Bill are applicable and not the old, although should he choose the old he will have to contribute at the rate of 11d. and not at the rate of 1s. 3d.

Mr. Logan: Will a member of an approved society giving up his insurance benefits have the right to come into the new scheme at the rate of 1s. 3d.—that is at once, within the 12 months?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, if he fulfils the other condition, but I cannot conceive of his doing so, because obviously it is far better to continue to be a voluntary contributor at 11d. than to become a new entrant at 1s. 3d. Now we come to the even more complicated question of the excepted occupations and, to make the picture complete, exempted persons. The origin of this class of excepted persons was that in certain industries and employments the terms of the employment were such as to provide benefits roughly equal to and in some cases superior to those provided by the scheme, and it was felt that it would be unfair to make a man contribute twice over. There is the case of excepted persons who, roughly speaking, are members of police forces—and members of fire brigades where they are attached to police forces—who are excepted in respect of health insurance and pensions under the present scheme; they cannot become voluntary contributors under the present scheme and will not be allowed to become voluntary contributors under the new scheme.
There is a second class of excepted persons, broadly speaking the employés of local authorities and members of the Railway Clerks Association and certain other employés of the railways, who are excepted from health insurance and old age pensions but are compulsorily insured for widows' and orphans pensions, because widows' and orphans' pensions are not included in the terms of their employment. When those persons get over £250 a year

and so become voluntary contributors they have at present become voluntary contributors both for health insurance and for pensions. In future they will only be required to become voluntary contributors for that portion for which they were compulsorily insured, namely, the widows' and orphans' pensions.

Mr. Lathan: Will they not be permitted to insure voluntarily for health insurance?

Mr. Hudson: Existing voluntary contributors will have three options instead of two. They will be allowed to opt either for the whole of the present scheme or for either health insurance or pensions or they will be allowed to opt only for widows' or orphans' pensions; but in future they will only be allowed to become voluntary contributors in respect of widows' and orphans' pensions, because the new idea is to remove from the people this compulsion which has hitherto existed to become voluntary contributors for both health and pensions.

Mr. Logan: May I ask whether it is not the case, so far as approved societies are concerned, that anyone in receipt of over £250 a year ceases to be a "C" contributor in National Health Insurance?

Mr. Hudson: No. Anyone in any excepted employment receiving over 250 a year in future will not be eligible to be a voluntary contributor for health. He is in a particular excepted class; I thought it was under paragraph (b), but I am not quite sure. Then there is a third class. Perhaps it is as well to get all this information into the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is a class of excepted persons who were not originally excepted for health but who, after the 1925 Act, could be excepted for both health and pensions if the employers establish their own schemes. Mainly the employers have been those in statutory undertakings, such as gas. In some cases, although the employers could have applied for exceptions, they paid into the scheme. There are, therefore, now two classes, one of people who are excepted for health and all pensions, and the other of people who were excepted originally for health and are still excepted, and who may be excepted for both health and contributory old age pensions.
The first class under the existing Act cannot become voluntary contributors. Under the new Measure they will also


not be able to become voluntary contributors; but the second class could become voluntary contributors; but again, although they were excepted for health, and they had a full health provision, under the existing law they became voluntary contributors for both health and pensions. The existing voluntary contributors have had no option; in future anyone in this class who comes over the £250 limit will become a voluntary contributor only for pensions. Finally, I come to a small class of exempt persons. They were persons who had some income of their own, and, for their own purposes, claimed exemption from health insurance. They can at present become voluntary contributors for both health and pensions, but in future they will be allowed to insure only for the benefit for which they are now compulsorily insured, widows' and orphans' pensions. I apologise to the House for taking up so much time, but I wanted to give hon. Members the complete picture. May I now deal with the vexed question of women?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Before the Minister does so, may I ask him a question? A voluntary contributor to-day is paying 1s. 5d. for health and pensions. He has been a voluntary contributor for 21 years. Will he be enabled to get pensions for himself and his wife at 65 if he drops from 1s. 5d. when the Bill becomes law to 11d. per week?

Mr. Hudson: I should like to confirm it in Writing to the hon. Gentleman, but I think the answer is "Yes," if he is a voluntary contributor at present—

Mr. Griffiths: Yes—

Mr. Hudson: —and he drops his present insurance and only retains his pension insurance. I am assuming that out of the 1s. 5d. pension represents 11d., and that he takes advantage of the Bill and becomes a contributor under the new scheme. He will, of course, get his full pension only if his contributions are at the full rate of 50 a year.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Are we to understand that the person who gets £400 a year will be regarded as receiving not a salary but an allowance?

An Hon. Member: No.

Mr. Hudson: That question must be decided between the two hon. Members. Now we come to the question of women.
I think I can best start by relieving the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). She said that she wanted every citizen treated as a citizen. I hope she will agree with me before I sit down that in fact the provision we have made in this Bill is based on equal citizenship. I think that perhaps the simplest way will be to give the House a very brief account of how we arrived at the present Bill. Once we had decided to include in a Bill those persons who were at present outside compulsory insurance—and let me remind the House that the Bill was due to the fact that we believed that certain categories of people were not able without State aid to secure for themselves the necessary cover for their old age, which other people who were inside insurance could secure—and we commenced to discuss who were to be included in the new Bill, obviously we were confronted with a ready-made limit of £250, because that was the limit already existing for the compulsory scheme, and it seemed reasonable to take that as a starting point. Clearly, people below £250 could be assumed to require State assistance in order to provide pensions and cover for themselves and their widows.
We started with women, and we examined what was the position of women with incomes of £250. Clearly women below £250 required a State subsidy, and it was therefore decided that women whose incomes were below £250 should be entitled to come into this scheme. The only thing for which a single woman can be insured in practice is for her own old age pension, and that is really the standard. We decided that 6d. was a proper contribution. Then came the question whether we ought to set an income figure higher than £250 for a woman. We looked at it from the point of view of need, and we came to the conclusion, which I hope the House will share, that a woman with an income of over £250 could secure cover for herself at a reasonable price outside. The objections to the scheme which I have seen in the Press, and the objections which have been voiced in some quarters of the House this afternoon, seem to proceed from the assumption that it is either the scheme or nothing, but, of course, that is not the case. It is quite true that the scheme is advantageous, but anyone who does not go into the scheme can still get the cover outside.
Hon. Members have suggested, and I see that it is included in the various documents that we have received from certain societies, that a woman receiving between £250 and £400 a year could not save enough for her old age. But the whole system of saving does not consist in putting a few pennies now and again into a child's money-box; there is a widely developed system of insurance, and a single woman aged 25 can purchase an old age pension at the age of 65 for the sum of 1s. 6d. a week with in addition a surrender value. The question arises whether it is too much to expect a woman with an income of over £250 a year to be able to afford 1s. 6d. a week. Can you really suggest, when a woman earning below £250 a year is to pay 26s. a year for pension rights, that there is any hardship involved in a woman who earns £150 a year more having to pay an extra £2 12s. a year for cover in an outside firm? We base this on need. I suggest seriously to the House that it is not a hardship on a single woman to have to pay the small sum of is. 6d. a week to obtain this particular cover. In the extreme case of the older woman under the Government scheme the Government liability represents no less than 94 per cent. of the cost. In the extreme case of the elderly woman coming under the Government scheme 94 per cent. of the cost is to be provided free by the Government. Are you seriously going to suggest that a single woman earning £400 a year has need of a dole of that kind?

Miss Wilkinson: Has a single man?

Mr. Hudson: I am now going on to the question of men. The first thing we thought of was to have the men equal at £250 and we examined it. We admitted that below £250 the man would have to have the advantage of the help of the State. We asked, is it necessary to give the man who is earning more, this help? We were bound to inquire what the man was expected to provide, by way of providing for his wife and children. I am basing this on his need as a citizen. He has to provide, if he can, a pension for himself at 65, a pension for his wife at 65, a pension for his widow if he leaves her a widow, a pension for his children and a pension for his orphans if he and his wife both die. Whereas a woman has only one provision to make

for her old age, a man has five provisions which he ought to make. The question arises, Can the man make these provisions? And the answer is not that he has not enough money if he is earning £250, but even if he had the money he cannot because there is no insurance company which would provide the cover, and even if there were the actuarial cost would be between 5s. and 6s. a week. It was clear that the man earning £250 required State help. The question arose, Did the man earning more than require it? In view of what I have just said the answer was that he did if we were going to include the considerable class of black-coated workers we were out to help.
There is no sex discrimination in this at all. On the contrary, if there is discrimination it is against the unfortunate man. I will tell you why. If you will look at the Government Actuary's report you will see the figures quoted. A man is expected to pay 1s. 3d. a week contribution against 6d. by the woman. Of that 1s. 3d. 10d. represents the cover for the widow and orphans, leaving only 5d. for a pension for himself and his wife at 65. You will therefore see that if you allow something less than half of that for the wife, the man is being expected to pay about 1s. a week, not for his benefit, but for benefit which will accrue to his dependants, namely, women and children up to the age of 16. It is impossible, in face of figures like that, to suggest that this scheme discriminates against women and in favour of men.

Miss Ward: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point that a woman goes in at the age of 40 or 45. He said that with an income of between £250 and £400, if you had to pay 5s. a week, you could get cover. In the hurried time at our disposal we tried to find out what cover could be obtained from an insurance company for a woman entering insurance at 40 or 45, and we were led to believe that she would have to pay 5s. to get her cover outside the Government scheme.

Mr. Hudson: In the first place, it is almost impossible to conceive a woman who has never been at work before suddenly starting off at £400 a year, and, unless you can conceive that,


there is no case. In the ordinary case of a woman, she starts off under contract of service at a much smaller salary. She is then an insured person, and, when she rises over £250, she is entitled to become a voluntary contributor, and, instead of paying 6d., she continues at the lower rate of Sid. That is really the answer to the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who said that this would be a further argument for depressing women's wages, and that an employer would say, "We must not raise you above £250 because you will cease to be insured." With regard to the cost of cover in these extreme cases, it would be 3s. 4d. That is about £8 a year. It is very hard indeed to believe that any hardship is being created by compelling a woman earning £400 a year to pay £6 10s. more to get cover outside.
I hope I have succeeded in making the broad outlines of the Bill clear. There has been general agreement on all sides that it meets a want, and I think the figures that my right hon. Friend and I have quoted about actuarial costs show how difficult, if not impossible, it would be for persons in the categories concerned to make adequate provision for their own old age or for their widows or orphans. The scheme is entirely voluntary and it is not meant to help those who are in a position to obtain their own social protection. Although the State grants are generous, especially at the older ages, we have maintained the contributory principle and the scheme seeks to relate benefits to needs and to contributions. Having regard to the size of the State assistance, I say without hesitation that there is no other national insurance scheme that I know of which approaches it, much less surpasses it, in its generosity. I believe that it fulfils the pledges that were made at the last election, and I am perfectly certain that it is worthy to take its proper place in our scheme of national insurance, which, I believe, rightly is at once the admiration and the envy of every other civilised country in the world.

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the classes of persons who can become insured as voluntary contributors for the purposes of widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions, and otherwise to amend, in relation to voluntary contributors and women engaged in certain excepted employments, the enactments relating to such pensions and to health insurance, to amend Section thirty of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, and Section four of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient that—

(1) there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament into any account constituted under the said Act—

(i) in the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty, and in each of the two succeeding years, a sum greater by one-third than the sum which, on an estimate made in accordance with directions given by the Treasury, may be expected to be received in a contribution year in respect of the contributions of persons (hereinafter referred to as 'initial entrants') who by virtue of the said Act, and not later than 52 months after the commencement thereof, are admitted as special voluntary contributors to insurance for the purposes of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936 (hereinaftor referred to as 'the principal Act'), such estimate being framed on the basis that every entrant is insured throughout the year;
(ii) in each of the next succeeding seven years, a sum so calculated that, if annual payments of that amount were made during a period of twenty-seven years, those payments together with the sums paid under the preceding paragraph would be equal in value to the capital amount (as estimated by the Government actuary in the year nineteen hundred and forty-one) of the loss to the said account arising from the admission to insurance of initial entrants; and
(iii) in subsequent years, such sums as Parliament may determine with a view to meeting the loss to the said account arising from persons, whether initial entrants or not, being admitted to insurance for such purposes as aforesaid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session; and

(2) there shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any increased expenditure attributable to the said Act in respect of old age pensions pay-


able under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, by virtue of the principal Act, and, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, any other increased expenditure so attributable in respect of the administration of those Acts."—(King's Recommendation signified.) [Sir K. Wood.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the development of facilities for, and the encouragement of, physical training and recreation, and to facilitate the establishment of centres for social activities (hereafter in this Resolution referred to as 'the said Act') it is expedient to authorise the following payments out of moneys provided by Parliament, that is to say,—

(i) any grants which the Board of Education or the Secretary of State for Scotland (hereafter in this Resolution referred to as 'the Board' and 'the Secretary of State' respectively) may, in accordance with recommendations made by a grants committee and with arrangements approved by the Treasury, make—

(a) towards the expenses of a local authority or local voluntary organisation in providing, or aiding the provision of, facilities for physical training and recreation, or in respect of the training and supply of teachers and leaders;
(b) to the funds of a national voluntary organisation having similar objects;

(c) in exceptional circumstances, to a local voluntary organisation in aid of the maintenance of any such facilities as aforesaid;

(ii) such sum as may represent the increase resulting, from any provision of the said Act in education grants payable under any Act; and
(iii) any payments which the Board or the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury and, as respects local committees and their sub-committees, after consultation with the appropriate grants committee, make in respect of—

(a) administrative expenses of a National Council and its committees, of a grants committee or of a local committee and its sub-committees;
(b) allowances to members of any such council, committee, or sub-committee;
(c) remuneration to the chairman of a grants committee;

(iv) any other expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board or the Secretary of State."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.